T.
.l^'b* 9335. 4A33n
Given By
W, a SUPT. OF D.OCUMENX.S
^
I,?
R-*
mk:
HEARINGS ON S. RES. 301
HEARINGS
BEiFORE A
SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY
CENSURE CHARGES
UNITED STATES SENATE
EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
PURSUANT TO THE ORDER ON
S. Res. 301
AND AMENDMENTS
A RESOLUTION TO CENSURE THE SENATOR FROM
WISCONSIN, MR. McCarthy
AUGUST 31, SEPTEMBER 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 AND 17, 1954
PARTI
Printed for the use of the Select CJommlttee on S. Res. 301
HEARINGS ON S. RES. 301
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY
CENSUEE CHARGES
UNITED STATES SENATE
EIGHTY-THIRD CONGKESS
SECOND SESSION
PDRSTJANT TO THE ORDER ON
S. Res. 301
AND AMENDMENTS
A RESOLUTION TO CENSURE THE SENATOR FROM
WISCONSIN, MR. McCarthy
AUGUST 31, SEPTEMBER 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 AND 17, 1954
PART 1
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on S. Res. 301
/"^i-
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
62461 WASHINGTON : 1954
7335
Boston Public Library
'uperintendent of Documents
OCT 2 7 1954
SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY CENSURE CHARGES
ARTHUR V. WATKINS, Utah, Chairman
EDWIN C. JOHNSON, Colorado, Vice Chairman
FRANK CARLSON, Kansas JOHN C. STENNIS, Mississippi
FRANCIS CASE, South Dakota SAM J. ERVIN, Jk., North Carolina
II
^ CONTENTS
0
Statements: ,. ^ . . ^*^*
Black, Senator Hugo: 1934 statement on shielding wrong-doing m
government 2"'
Carlson, Senator Frank: Propriety of administrative assistants par-
ticipating in senate committee or subcommittee hearings 249
Flanders, Senator Ralph E. :
June 1, 1954, Floor speech 308
June 11, 1954, Floor speech 310
Hennings, Senator Thomas 0. Jr. : August 2, 1954, Floor speech 52
Johnson, Senator Edwin C. : Denver Post article of March 12, 19o4 — 35
McCarthy, Senator Joseph R. :
Opening 14
Lustron 5^
Nixon, Congressman Richard : April 22, 1948, Floor speech 270, 274
Watkins, Senator Arthur V. (Chairman) :
Opening 11
Memorial to the late Senator Burnet R. Maybank 39
Impartiality question 40
Right of a Senator to lecture a witness in a hearing 252
Witnesses :
Senators :
Hayden, Carl 359
McCarthy, Joseph R. :
Before Mundt Committee on May 5, 1954, relative to 2i^-page
document :
Excerpts 95
In toto Part 2, 611
Direct examination . 181, 259, 278, 325
Cross examination 327, 375, 417
Others :
Anastos, C. George 518
Cohn, Roy 443
Collier, Robert A. :
Before Mundt Committee relative to 2i^-page document:
Excerpts 98
In toto :
May 5, 1954 Part 2, 575
May 6, 1954 Part 2, 608
Hall, Joseph W., Jr 66
Harding, William J., Jr , 175
Juliana, James N 514
Lawton, Major General Kirke B. (retired) accompanied by John
E. Pernice (counsel) 165, 433
Livin2;stone, B. L 63
Nelson, Clifford J 510
Peress, Major Irving :
Before McCarthy Committee on January 30, 1954 206
Watkins, Charles L. :
Direct examination 535
Cross-examination 540a
Winchell, Walter 145
Woodward, William J 449
Zwicker, Brigadier General Ralph W. :
Before McCarthy Committee on February 18, 1954 :
Excerpts 69
In toto 237
Before Select Committee on September 13, 1954 453
m
IV CONTENTS
Documents : Pago
Addendum A (Law Brief of Committee Connsel) Part 2 541
Addendum B (Law Brief of Senator McCarthy's Counsel) Part 2 554
Addendum to H-H-H subcommittee report 363
(Also on page 52a of Appendix III, this Index.)
Amendments to S. Res. 301 :
Bush 4
Flanders (1 to 33) 5
Fulbright (1 to 6) 2
Morse (a to g) 3
Smith , 3
Appendix
I — Testimony of Robert A. Collier before Mundt Committee on :
May 5, 1954 Part 2 575
May 6, 1954 Part 2 008
II — Testimony of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy before Mimdt
Committee on May 5, 1954 Part 2 611
III- — H-H-H subcommittee report on S. Res. 187 and S. Res. 3(>4
of S2d Congress Part 2 629
Army Regulations, Change No. 1 of (dated May 28, 1952—380-10)— 458
Classified Documents, Definitions and Categories 412
Espionage Act, section 798 of 395
Internal Security Act, Progress Report by Subcommittee of Senate
on Administration of,
(1951) 419
(July 30, 1953) 419
Legislative Reorganization Act 1946, Section 102-G 2()7
Memorandum, by Attorney General Tom Clark to all Government
Departments, Agencies, and Commissions — April 23, 1948 512
Memorandum from Attorney General Herbert Brownell to the Presi-
dent of the United States 123
Mundt Committee Report (page 76) on the 214-page document 317
Nixon, Congressman Richard M. — Speech in the House of Representa-
tives on April 22, 1948 422
Notice of Hearings on S. Res. 301 8
Oath of Office for Federal Employees 263
Order of the Senate on S. Res. 301 1
Payroll record of Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of the
Senate for January 1953 524
Precedents for the appointment of committee members by Chairman
(August 24, 1912, Congressional Record, p.- 11812) 537
Presidential Directive of March 13, 1948 457
Rules of Procedure :
Select Committee 10, 13
Conunittee on Government Operations 351
Rules of the Senate, No. 25 (page 42 Senate Manual) 372
Specifications :
No. 1 — Incidents of Contempt of the Senate or a Senatorial Committee
(Fulbright 3, Morse a, Flanders 17) 16
No. II — I)icidents of encouragement of V. S. employees to violate the
law and their oaths of oflBce or Executive orders (Fulbright 5,
Morse e, Flanders 14) S3
No. Ill — Incidents involving receipt or use of confidential or classified
documents or other confidential information from executive files
(Morse d, Flanders 13) 94
No. IV — Incidents involving abuse of colleagues in the Senate
(Flanders 30. Morse b) 61
No. V — Incidents relating to Ralph Zwicker. a general officer of the
Army ot the United States (Fulbright 4, Morse c, Flanders 10) 69
S. Res. 301 of Kid c:<mgress 1
S. Res. 1S7 of 82d Congres.s 20,279
S. Res. 300 of S2d Congress 31
United States Code:
Title 5. Section »i52 411
Title IS. Swtion 4 265
Vote Record im S. Res. .300 of S2d Congress 32
Zwicker, Brig. Gen. Riilph W., Military record of 80
CONTENTS V
Exhibits : „
H-H-H Subcommittee Report: ^»^e
No. 3 ;3
No. 4 j^
No. 5 ^^
No. 7 26
No. 8 ^6
No. 9 27
No. 10 2<
No. 11 ^^
No. 12 29
- No. 12a f^
No. 13 ^1
No. 14 ^1
No. 17 32
No. 18 32
No. 19 35
No. 20 43
No. 21 44
No. 3(1 291
No. 37 294
No. 38 44
No. 40 45
No. 41 45
No. 42 300
No. 44 49
No. 45 51
Select Committee :
No. 1 47
No. 2 80
No. 3 123
Senator McCarthy :
No. 1 279
No. 2 280
No. 3 294
No. 4 304
No. 5 (2i/(.-page document) — not reproduced 314,326
JLietters :
Brownell, Attornev General Herbert, to Senator Mundt :
jMav 6. 1954 114
May 13, 1954 116
Cotter, Paul J., to Senator McCarthy: November 7, 1952 44
Eisenhower, President Dwight D., to Secretary of Defense Wilson :
May 17, 1954 122
Gillette, Senator Guy M., to Senator McCarthy :
September 17, 1951 279
September 25, 1951 281, 23
October 1, 1951 23
December 6. 19.51 ^ 26
December 11, 19.51 27
Deceml)er 21. 19.51 28
January 10, 1952 30
May 7, 1952 32
May 10, 1952 290, 43
To Senator Havden : September 10, 1952 294
Hayden, Senator Carl, to Darrell St. Clair : November 20, 1952 362
Hennings, Senator Thomas C, Jr.. to Senator :McCarthy : November
21, 1952 45
Kiermas. Ray, to Paul J. Cotter: Xovemlier 10, 1052 45
Mnndt, Senator Karl E., to Attorney General Herbert Brownell:
May 5, 1954 114
McCarthy, Senator Joseph R., to Senator Gillette:
September 17, 1951 279,280
October 4, 1951 23
December 6, 1951 24
December 7, 1951 26
VI CONTENTS
Letters — Continued
McCarthy, Senator Joseph R., to Senator Gillette — Continued Pas»
December 19, 1951 27
January 4, 1952 29
May 8, 1952 32,35
May 11, 1952 44
To Senator Hayden, March 21, 1952 30
To Senator Hennings :
November 28, 1952 49, 304
December 1, 1952 51
McDaniel, Adjutant General R. D., to Commanding General, First
Army : February 8, 1954 454
Stevens, Secretary of the Army Robert S., to Senator McCarthy : Febru-
ary 16, 1954 462
Wilson, Secretary of Defense C. E., to Senator Watkins : September
10, 1954 434
Telegrams :
Hayden, Senator Carl, to Senator Monroney : November 19, 1952 361
Hennings, Senator Thomas C, Jr., to Senator McCarthy :
"not sent" November 14, 1952 300
November 21, 1952 47
McCarthy, Senator Joseph R., to Senator Jackson : February 21, 1954_ 391
Monroney, Senator A. S. Mike, to Senator Hayden : November 21, 1952_ 361
Rulings of the Chair :
On motion by Senator McCarthy to dismiss Specification No. I 20
On motion by Senator McCarthy to insert article from Denver Post 36
On offer by Senator McCarthy of views of Justice Black 261
On admissibility of acts or statements of individual Senators 268
On motion of Senator McCarthy that the Committee take judicial
notice that the charges under S. Res. 187 of 82d Congress were
preferred in open session 282
On offer in evidence of the 214 page document by Senator McCarthy 325
On request that the Committee obtain certain testimony from the
Senate Parliamentarian 366
On motion by Committee Counsel that Senator McCarthy be required
to divulge the name of the informant on the 2Y2 page document 396
On offer hj Senator McCarthy of testimony tending to prove the
falsity of the charges under S. Res. 187 of 82d Congress 296
Other Material :
Case, Senator Francis, offer that Senator McCarthy's utterance about
Senator Heudrickson be considered in light, of present facts 425
Lawton, Major General Kirke B.- — ^"I must respectfully decline to
an.swer" 167
McCarthy, Senator Joseph R. :
a. Statement in Mundt hearings about Senator Flanders 63
b. To Reporter B. L. Livinavstone about Senator Flanders 64
c. To Reporter Joseph W. Hall, Jr., about Senator Heudrickson 68
d. To General Zwicker concerning fitness to wear the uniform 332
e. Invitation to 2,000,000 Federal employees 262
f. Relative to his authority to receive information about wrong-
doing 262
g. Scope of invitation to the Civil Service Employees 265
h. Had no desire to appear before H-H-H Subcommittee unless
ordered 288
i. Someone on H-H-H Subcommittee was dishonest 299
j. November 21st telegram was first request to appear 299
k. Discussion with Senator Gillette about subpoena 305
1. Conversation with Senator Heudrickson by phone 306
m. Admission of having made the alleged remark about Senator
Heudrickson 306
Winchell, Walter, reference to 2y2-page document 150
Zwicker, Brigadier General Ralph W., overheard by William J. Hard-
ing, Jr., to have referred to Senator McCarthy 179
HEAEINGS ON SENATE KESOLUTION 301
TUESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1954
United States Senate,
Select Committee To Study Censure Charges Pursuant
TO Senate Order on Senate Resolution 301,
Washington, D. G.
The select committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 : 20 a. m., in the
caucus room, Senate Office Building, Senator Arthur V. Watkins
(chairman) presidino;.
Present: Senators Watkins (chairman), Johnson of Colorado (vice
chairman), Stennis, Carlson, Case, and Ervin.
Also present: Senator McCarthy; E. Wallace Chadwick, counsel
to the committee ; Guy G. deFuria, assistant counsel to the committee ;
John M. Jex, clerk of the committee ; John W. Wellman, staff member ;
Frank Ginsburg and Ray R. McGuire, members of Senator Watkins'
staff on loan to the committee ; and Edward Bennett Williams, counsel
to Senator McCarthy, with his associates, Agnes A, Neill and Brent
Bozell.
The Chairman. There will now be f)laced in the record Senate
Resolution 301 of the 83d Congress, together with the amendments
proposed thereto and the order of the Senate dated August 2, 1954,
which set up this committee and referred that resolution and those
amendments to us.
(The matter referred to is as follows :)
[S. Res. 301, 83d Cong., 2d sess.]
ORDER
Ordered, That S. Res. 301, to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, INIr. Mc-
Carthy, submitted by Senator Flanders on July 30, and amendments proposed
thereto, be referred to a select committee as provided in the motion set forth
below and agreed to by the Senate on Monday, August 2 (legislative day, Friday,
July 2, 19.54) :
"Mr. President, I move to refer the pending resolution (S. Res. 301) together
with all amendments proposed thereto, .to a select committee to be composed of
8 Republicans and 3 Democrats who shall be named by the Vice President : And
ordered further. That the committee, which shall be authorized to hold hearings,
to sit and act at such times and places during the sessions, recesses, and adjourned
periods of the Senate, to require by subpeua or otherwise the attendance of such
witnesses and the production of such correspondence, books, papers, and docu-
ments, and to take such testimony as it deems advisable, and that the committee
be instructed to act and make a report to this Body priod to the adjournment
sine die of the Senate in the second session of the 83d Congress.
[S. Res. 301, 83d Cong., 2d sess.]
RESOLUTION
Resolved, That the conduct of the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy,
is unbecoming a Member of the United States Senate, is contrary to senatorial
traditions, and tends to bring the Senate into disrepute, and such conduct is
hereby condemned.
1
2 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
[S. Res. 301, 83(1 Coug., 2d sess.]
PROPOSED AMENDMENT Proposed by Mr. Fulbright to the resolution (S. Res.
301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz:
On page 1, line 5, after the word "condemned", strike the period and insert the
following : "for the following reason :
"(1) The junior Senator from Wisconsin, while a member of the committee
having jurisdiction over the affairs of the Lustron Company, a corporation
financed by Government money, received $10,000 without rendering services of
comparable value ;".
[S. Res. 301, 83d Cong., 2d sess.]
AMENDIMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr. Fulbright to the resolution
(S. Res. 301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz:
On page 1. line 5, after the word "condemned", strilie the period and insert
the following : "for the following reason :
"(2) In public hearings, before the Senate Permanent Investigations Sub-
committee, of which he was chairman, the junior Senator from Wisconsin strongly
implied that Annie Lee Moss was known to be a member of the Communist
Party and that if she testified she would perjure herself, before he had given
her an opportunity to testify in her own behalf;".
[S. Res. 301, 83d Cong., 2d sess.]
AMENDMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr. Fulbright to the resolution
(S. Res. 301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz :
On page 1, line 5, after the word "condenmed", strike the period and insert
the following "for the following reason :
"(3) Although repeatedly invited to testify by a committee of this Senate
headed by the Senator from Iowa, the junior Senator from Wisconsin denounced
the committee and contemptuously refused to comply with its request ;".
[S. Res. 301, 83d Cong., 2d sess.]
AMENDMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr. Fulbright to the resolution
(S. Res. 301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz :
On page 1, line 5, after the word "condemned", strike the period and insert
the following : "for the following reason :
"(4) Without justification, the junior Senator from Wisconsin impugned the
loyalty, patriotism, and character of General Ralph Zwicker ;".
[S. Res. 301, 83d Cong., 2d sess.]
AMENDMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr. Fulbright to the resolution
(S. Res. 301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz :
On page 1, line 5, after the word "condemned", strike out the period and insert
the following : "for the following reason :
"(5) The junior Senator from Wisconsin openly, in a public manner before
nationwide television, invited and urged employees of the Government of the
United States to violate the law and their oaths of office ;".
[S. Res. 301, 83d Cong., 2d sess.]
AMENDMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr. Fulbright to the resolution
(S. Res. 301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz:
On page 1, line 5, after the word "condemned", strike out the period and insert
the following : "for the following reason :
"(6) The Junior Senator from Wisconsin in a speech on June 14, 1951, without
proof or other justification made an unwarranted attack upon General George
C. MarshaU."
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 6
[S. Res. 301, 83d Cong., 2d sess.]
AMENDMENT (in the nature of a substitute) Intended to be proposed by Mr.
Smith of New Jersey to the resolution (S. Res. 301) to censure the Senator
from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz :
Strike out all after "Resolved," and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"That the Senate views with real concern the growing divisiveness and disunity
in the Senate and throughout the country over the problems created by the fact
that there had been infiltration of Communists and other security risks into
sensitive positions, and the methods and procedures employed in exposing and
eliminating such security risks ; and be it further
^'Resolved, That it is the immediate responsibility of the Senate to deal with
this critical situation in an objective, judicial, and statesmanlike manner ; and
be it further
"Resolved, that- the Vice President of the United States Immediately appoint
a special bipartisan committee of the Senate to investigate and report with recom-
mendations to the Senate on this controversial matter. The committee shall be
composed of six Senators, three of whom shall be nominated \)j the Republican
Policy Committee, and three by the Democratic Policy Committee. Tlie Vice
President shall be ex officio chairman of the group. The committee shall report
with recommendations to the Senate not later than February 1, 1955."
[S. Res. 301, 83d Cong., 2d sess.]
AMENDMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr. Morse to the resolution ( S. Res.
301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz:
On page 1, lines 4 and 5, strike out the words "and such conduct is hereby
condemned.", and insert in lieu thereof the following: "because the said Mr.
McCarthy —
"(a) declined to comply with a request made by letter on November 21,
1952, by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of
the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, that he appear before
the subcommittee to supply information concerning certain specific matters
involving his activities as a Member of the Senate ;
"(b) unfairly accused his fellow Senators Gillette, Monroney, Hendrick-
son, Hayden, and Hennings of improper conduct in carrying out their duties
as Senators;
"(c) as chairman of a committee resorted to abusive conduct in his
interrogation of General Ralph Zwicker, including a charge that General
Zwicker was unfit to wear the uniform, during the appearance of General
Zwicker as a witness before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
of the Senate Committee on Government Operations on February 18, 1954;
"(d) received and made use of confidential information unlawfully
obtained from a document in executive files upon which document the
Federal Bureau of Investigation had placed its highest classification ; and
offered such information to a lawfully constituted Senate subcommittee in
the form' of a spurious document which he falsely asserted to the subcom-
mittee to be 'a letter from the FBI.' ;
"(e) openly invited and incited employees of the Government to violate
the law and their oaths of office by urging them to make available infor-
mation, including classified information, which in the opinion of the em-
ployee would be of assistance to the junior Senator from Wisconsin in
conducting his investigations, even though the supplying of such informa-
tion by the employee would be illegal and in violation of Presidential order
and contrary to the constitutional rights of the Chief Executive under the
separation-of -powers doctrine ;
"(f) attempted to invade the constitutional power of the President of
the United States to conduct the foreign relations of the United States by
carrying on negotiations with certain Greek shipowners in respect to foreign
trade policies, even though the executive branch of our Government had a
few weeks previously entered into an luiderstanding with the Greek Gov-
ernment in respect to banning the flow of strategic materials to Communist
countries ; and
"(g) permitted and ratified over a period of several months in 1953 and
1954 the abuse of Senatorial privilege by Mr. Roy Cohn, chief counsel to
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
the Permanent Investigations Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on
Government Operations of whicli committee and subcommittee the junior
Senator from Wisconsin is chairman, Mr. Colin's abuse having been directed
toward attempting to secure preferential treatment for Private David Schine
by the Department of the Army, at a time when the Army was under
investigation by the committee.
'Sec. 2. It is the sense of the Senate that such conduct is hereby condemned."
[S. Res. 301, 83d Cong., 2d sess.]
AMENDMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr. Bush to the resolution ( S. Res.
301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz:
Strike out all after "Resolvcfl," and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"That rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended by inserting at the
end thereof the following :
" '3. All bills and resolutions to authorize the investigation of a particular
subject matter shall define such subject matter clearly, and shall state the need
for such investigation and the general objects thereof.'
"Sec. 2. Rule XXV of such Standing Rules is amended by deleting the title
'standing Committees' and inserting in lieu thereof 'Powers and Duties of
Committees'.
"Sec. 3. Paragraph (b) of subsection 3 of such rule XXV is amended to read
as follows :
"'(b) Unless the committee otherwise provides, one member shall constitute
a quorum for the receipt of evidence and the taking of testimony ; but no witness
shall be compelled to give oral testimony before less than two members if,
prior to testifying, he objects to the presence of only one member.'
"Sec. 4. Such rule XXV is amended by inserting at the end thereof the follow-
ing subsections :
".'5. The rules of the committees shall be the rules of the subcommittees so
far as applicable. Committees and subcommittees may adopt additional rules
not inconsistent with the rules of the Senate.
" '6. All hearings conducted by committee shall be open to the public, except
executive sessions for marking up bills or for voting or where the committee
by a majority vote orders an executive session.
" '7. Unless otherwise provided, committee action shall be by vote of a majority
of a quorum.
" '8. An investigating subcommittee of any committee may be authorized only
by a majority vote of the committee.
" '9. No committee hearing shall be held unless .specifically authorized by the
committee.
" '10. No committee hearing shall be held in any place outside of the District
of Columbia unless authorized by a majority vote of the committee.
" '11. No measure, finding, or recommendation shall be reported from any
committee unless a majority of the committee were actually present.
" '12. No testimony taken or material presented in an executive session shall
be made public, either in whole or in part or by way of summary, unless au-
thorized by a majority vote of the committee.
" '13. No person shall be employed for or assigned to investigate activities
until approved by the committee.
" '14. Unless otherwise provided, subpenas to require the attendance of wit-
nesses, the giving of testimony, and the production of books, papers, or other
evidence shall be issued only by authority of tlie committee, shall be signed by
the chairman or any member designated by the chairman, and may he served by
any person designated by the committee, the cliairman, or the signing member.
"'15. No witness shall be compelled to give oral testimony for broadcast, or
for direct reproduction by motion picture photography, recording, or otherwise
in news and entertainment media if he objects.
" '16. Oaths may be administered and hearings may be conducted and presided
over by the chairman or any member designated by the chairman.
" '17. AVitnesses shall be permitted to be advised by counsel of their legal
rights while giving testimony, and unless the presiding member otherwise directs,
to be accompanied by counsel at the stand.
" '18. AVitnesses, counsel, and other persons present at committee hearings
shall maintain proper order and decorum ; counsel shall observe the standards of
ethics and deportment generally required of attorneys at Jaw. The chairman
may punish breaches of this ijrovision by censure or by exclusion from the com-
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 5
mittee's hearings, and the committee may punish by citation to the Senate for
contempt.
" '19. Whenever the committee determines that evidence relating to a question
under inquiry may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate persons called as
witnesses therein, the committee shall observe the following additional pro-
cedure, so far as may be practicable and necessary for the protection of such
persons : ^ , ^ u.
"'(a) The subject of each hearing shall be clearly stated at the outset
thereof, and evidence sought to be elicited shall be pertinent to the subject as so
'"'(b) Preliminary staff inquiries may be directed by the chairman, but no
major phase of the investigation shall be developed by calling witnesses until
approved by the committee.
"'(c) All testimony, whether compelled or volunteered, shall be given under
oath. , . ^. J. .-,
"'(d) Counsel for witnesses may be permitted, in the discretion or the
presiding member and as justice may require, to be heard briefly on points of
right and procedure, to examine their clients briefly for purposes of amplifica-
tion and clarification, and to address pertinent questions by written interro-
gatory to other witnesses whose testimony pertains to their clients.
"'(e) Testimony shall be heard in executive session, the witness willing,
when necessary to shield the witness or other persons about whom he may
testify.
"•(f) The secrecy of executive sessions and of all matters and material not
expressly released by the committee shall be rigorously enforced.
"'(g) Witnesses shall be permitted brief explanations of aflSirmative or
negative responses, and may submit concise, pertinent statements, orally or in
writing, for inclusion in the record at the opening or close of tiieir testimony.
" '(h) An accurate verbatim transcript shall be made of all testimony, and no
alterations of meaning shall be permitted therein.
"'(i) Each witness may obtain transcript copies of his testimony given
publicly by paying the cost thereof ; copies of his testimony given in executive
session shall be furnished the witness at cost if the testimony has been released
or publicly disclosed, or if the chairman so orders.
"'(j) No testimony given in executive session shall be publicly disclosed in
part only, except when the committee decides that deletions from the trans-
cript are required by considerations of national security.
" '20. Whenever the committee determines that any testimony, statement,
release, or other evidence or utterance relating to a question under inquiry may
tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate persuus who are not witnesses, the
committee shall observe the following additional procedures, so far as may be
practicable and necessary for the protection of such persons :
"'(a) Persons so affected shall be afforded an opportunity to appear as
witnesses, promptly and at the same place if possible, and under subpena if
they so elect. Testimony relating to the adverse evidence or utterance shall be
subject to applicable provisions of subsection 19 of this rule.
"'(b) Each such person may, in lieu of appearing as a witness, submit a
concise, jjertinent sworn statement which shall be incorporated in the record
of the hearing to which the adverse evidence or utterance relates.
" '21. The chairman or a member shall when practicable consult with appro-
priate Federal law-enforcement agencies with respect to any phase of an in-
vestigation which may result in evidence exposing the commission of Federal
crimes, and the results of such consultation shall be reported to the committee
before witnesses are called to testify tlierein.
" '22. Requests to subpena additional witnesses shall be received and con-
sidered by the chairman in any investigation in which witnesses have been
subpenaed. Auy such request received from a witness or other i)erson entitled
to the protections afforded by subsection 19 or 20 of this rule shall be con-
sidered and disposed of by the committee.
" '23. Each committee conducting investigations shall make available to
interested persons copies of the rules applicable therein.' "
[S. Res. 301, 83(1 Cong., 2d sess.]
AINIENDMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr. Flandeks to the resolution (S.
Res. 301 ) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz :
On page 1, line 5, after the word "condemned", strike the period and insert
the following : "for the following reasons :
6 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
"(1) He has retained and/or accredited staff personnel whose reputations are
in question and whose backgrounds would tend to indicate untrustworthiness
(Surine, Lavinia, J. B. INlatthews).
"(2) He has permitted his staff to conduct itself in a presumptuous manner.
His counsel and his consultant (Messrs. Cohn and Schine) have been insolent to
other Senators, discourteous to the public, and discreditable to the Senate. His
counsel and consultant traveled abroad making a spectacle of themselves and
brought discredit upon the Senate of the United States, whose employees they
were.
"(3) He has conducted his committee in such a slovenly and unprofessional
way that cases of mistaken identities have resulted in grievous hardship or have
made his committee, and thereby the Senate, appear ridiculous. (Annie Lee
Moss, Lawrence W. Parrish, subpenaed and brought to Washington instead of
Lareence T. Parish.)
"(4) He has proclaimed publicly his intention to subpena citizens of good
reputation, and then never called them. (General Telford Taylor. William P.
Bundy, former President Truman, reporters Marder, Joseph Alsop, Friendly,
Bigrant, Phillip Potter. )
"(5) He has repeatedly used verbal subpenas of questionable legality. (Tried
to prevent State Department granting visa to William P. Bundy on ground that
he was under 'oral subpena.')
"(6) He has attempted to intimidate the press and sin?;le out individual
journalists who have been critical of him or whose reports he has regarded with
disfavor, and either threatened them with subpena or forced them to testify
in such a manner as to raise the possibility of a breach of the first amendment
of the Constitution. (Murrey Marder of the Washington Post, the Alsops, James
Wechsler.)
"(7) He has attempted 'economic coercion' against the press and radio, par-
ticularly the case of Time magazine, the Milwaukee Journal, and the Madison
Capital Times. (On June 16, 1952, McCarthy sent letters to advertisers in Time
magazine, urging them to withdraw their advertisements.)
"(8) He has permitted the staff to investigate at least one of his fellow
Senators (Jackson) and possibly numerous Senators. Such material has been
reserved with the obvious intention of coercing the other Senator or Senators to
submit to his will, or for the purpose of inhibiting them from expressing them-
selves critically. (Cohn said he would 'get' Senator Jackson). — Washington
News, June 14, 1954.
"(9) He has posed as savior of his country from communism, yet the Depart-
ment of Justice reported that McCarthy never turned over for prosecution a
single case against any of his alleged 'Communists.' (The Justice Department
report of December 18, 1951.) Since that date not a single person has been tried
for Communists activities as a result of information supplied by McCarthy.
"(10) He has attacked, defamed, and besmirched military heroes of the United
States, either as witnesses before his committee or under the cloak of immunity
of the Senate floor. (General Zwicker, General Marshall.)
"(11) He has used distortion and innuendo to attack the reputations of the
following citizens: Former President Truman, General George Marshall, At-
torney General Brownell, John J. McCloy, Ambassador Charles E. Bohlen, Sena-
tor Raymond Baldwin, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Anna Rosenberg,
Philip Jessup, Marquis Childs, Richard L. Strout of the Christian Science Moni-
tor, General Telford Taylor, and the three national press associations.
"(12) He has disclosed restricted security information in possible violation
of the espionage laws. McCarthy has made public portions of an Army Intelli-
gence stTidy. Soviet Siberia, which compelled the Army to declassify and release
the entire document.)
" (1.3) He received and held a vahiable classified document in possible violation
of the Espionage Act. (Revealed in the Army-McCarthy hearings tbat he had
improperly obtained J. Edgar Hoover's report on subversives from the Army, and
failed to restore the docimient to properly authorized hands.) He permitted
that document to fall into the hands of a gossip columnist (Walter Winchell).
"(14) He has publicly incited Government employees to violate their security
oaths and serve as his personal informants, thus tending to break down the
orderly chain of command in the civil service, as well as violate the security
provisions of the Government.
"(15) He has u-^pd his oliicial position to fix the Comnmnist label upon all
individuals and newspapers as might legitimately disagree with him or refuse
to acknowledge him as the unique leader in the tight against subversion.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 7
f Deliberate slips such as callinj? Adlai Stevenson 'Alger'; sayinfj that the
American Civil Liberties Union hart been 'listed' as doing the work of the
Communist Party ; calling the Milwaukee Journal and Washington Post local
'editions of tlie Daily Worker.')
"(16) He has attempted to usurp the functions of the executive depart-
ment by having his staff negotiate agreements with a group of Greek ship-
owners in London; and has infringed upon functions of the State Department,
claiming that he was acting in the 'national interest.'
"(17) He has continued to show his contempt for the Senate by failing to
explain in any manner the six charges contained in the Hennings-Hayden-
Hendrickson report, which was filed in January 1953. This involves his bank
transactions, possible in':ome-tax evasions, and the Lustron deal. The taint
pei-sists until he satisfactorily explains these matters, which he refused to do,
although invited six times to appear, during the Eighty-second Congress.
"(IS) He has made false claims about alleged wounds which in fact he did
not suffer. (Claims he was a tailgunner when, in fact, he was a Marine Air
Force Ground Intelligence oflicer * * * claims he entered as buck private^
when he entered as a commissioned oflicer.)
"(19) His rude and ruthless disregard of the rights of other Senators has
gone to the point where the entire minority membership of the Permanent
Investiuating Subcommittee resigned from the committee in protest against
his high-handedness. (July 10, 1953.)
"(20) He has intruded upon the prerogative of the executive branch, violating
the constitutional principles of separation of powers. (Within a single week
(February 14-20. 1953), McCarthy's activities against Voice of America forced
the State Department three times to reverse administrative decisions on matters
normally considered internal operating procedures: (1) The Department had
authorized the use of certain writings by pro-Communist authors as part of
their program to expose Communist lies and false promises. McC'arthy com-
pelled the State Department to discontinue this practice; (2) the Department
authorized its employees to refuse to talk with McCarthy's staff in the absence
of McCarthy himself. It was compelled to cancel this directive; and (3)
John Matson, a departnaental security agent who had 'cooperated' with
McCarthy, was transferred so as to be put out of reach of the Department's
confidential liles. McCarthy compelled the Department to return Matson to
his original position.)
"(21) He has infringed upon the jurisdiction of other Senate committees,
invading the area of the Internal Security Subcommittee and other committees
of the Congress.
"(22) He has failed to perform the solid and useful duties of the Government
Operations Committee, abandoning the legitimate and vital functions of this
committee.
"(23) He has held executive sessions in an apparent attempt to prevent the
press from getting an accurate account of the testimony of witnesses, and then
released his own versions of that testimony, often at variance with the subse-
quently revealed transcripts, and under circumstances in which the witness had
little opportunity to correct or object to his version.
"(24) He has questioned adverse witnesses in public session in such a manner
as to defame loyal and valuable public servants, whose own testimony he failed
to get beforehand, and whom he never -provided a comparable opportunity for
answering the charges.
"(25) He has barred the press and general public from executive sessions and
then permitted unauthorized persons whom his whim favored to attend, in
one case, a class of schoolgirls, thus holding the very principle of executive
sessions up to ridicule.
"(26) His conduct has caused and permitted his subcommittee to be incom-
plete or incapacitated in its normal work for approximately 40 per centum of
the time that he has been its chairman. (During his nineteen months as chair-
man of the subcommittee, his refusal to recognize their rights — later acknowl-
edged by him— caused the minority members to leave the subcommittee on
July 10, 1953, and they did not return until January 25, 1954. His personally
motivated quarrel with the United States Anny necessitated the interruption of
the subcommittee's work and its exclusive preoccupation with the Army-Mc-
Carthy hearings from April 22, 1954, to June 17, 1954. )
"(27) He has publicly threatened publications with the withdrawal of their
second-class mailing privilege because he disagreed with their editorial policy.
(Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time magazine.) Letter to Postmaster
8 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
General Summerfield made public August 22, 1953. See Washington Post, Au-
gust 23, 1953.
"(28) He has exploited his committee chairmanship to disseminate fantastic
and unverified claims for the obvious purpose of publicity. (McCarthy's hint
that he was in secret communication with Lavrenti P. Beria and would produce
him as a witness at a time when Beria was on the verge of execution in Moscow.)
Washington News, September 21, 1953 (announcement of plan to subpena Beria).
"(29) He has denied Members of Congress access to the tiles of the committee,
to which eveiy Member of Congress is entitled under the Reorganization Act
(title II, sec. 202, par. (d) ).
"(30) He has ridiculed his colleagues in the Senate, defaming them publicly
in vulgar and base language (regarding Senator Hendrickson — 'A living miracle
without brains or guts ;'. On Flanders — 'Senile — I think they should get a man
with a net and take him to a good quiet place.').
"(31) He has announced investigations prematurely, subsequently dropping
these investigations so that the question whether there was ever any serious
intent to pursue them may be justifiably raised, along with the inevitable con-
clusion that publicity was the only purpose. (Central Intelligence Agency,
Beria, and so forth. )
"(32) Checking through hearings, one will note that favorable material sub-
mitted by witnesses will usually have the notation 'May be found in the flies of
the subcommittee', whereas unfavorable material is printed in the record.
"(33) He has permitted changing of committee reports and records in such a
way as to substantially change or delete vital meanings. ( Senator Margaret
Chase Smith felt compelled to object to the filing of his 1953 subcommittee reports
without their first being sent through the full committee.)"
The Chairman. At this point we will read into the record the notice
of this hearing :
"August 24, 1954.
"Notice or Hearings
"Notice is hereby oriven to Hon. Joseph R. McCarthy, and all inter-
ested persons, that the select committee of the Senate of the United
States, appointed pursuant to an order of the Senate agi'eed to on
August 2, 1954 (legislative day, July 2, 1954), entered on Senate
Resolution 301, a copy of which together with the resolution and
amendments thereto is hereto attached, will meet in executive session
on Monday, August 30, 1954, at 2 p. m., eastern daylight-saving time,
and that the said committee will sit for the purposes of its appointment
on Tuesday, August 31, 1954, at 10 a. m., eastern daylight-saving time,
in the Senate caucus room, in the Senate Office Building, at Wash-
ington, D. C, and commence at said time and place its hearings to
receive evidence, take testimony, and act as provided in said order,
relating to the following matters, among others, committed to its
jurisdiction :
"I. Incidents of contempt of the Senate or a senatorial committee,
referred to in the following :
"A. Amendment proposed by Mr. Fulbright to the resolution (S.
Res. 301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy,
viz:
"(3) Although repeatedly invited to testify by a committee of this Senate
headed by the Senator from Iowa, the junior Senator from Wisconsin denounced
the committee and contemptuously refused to comply with its request.
"B. Amendment proposed by Mr. Morse to the resolution (S. Res.
301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz:
"(a) Declined to comply with a request made by letter on November 21, 1952,
by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration, that he appear before the subcommittee
to supply information concerning certain specific matters involving his activities
as a Member of the Senate.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 9
"C. Amendment proposed by Mr. Flanders to the resolution (S.
Res. 301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy,
viz:
"(17) He has continued to show his contempt for the Senate by failing to
explain in any manner the six charges contained in the Hennings-Hayden-Hen-
drickson report, whicli was filed in January 1953. This involves his bank trans-
actions, possible income-tax evasions, and the Lustron deal. The taint persists
until he satisfactorily explains these matters, which he refused to do, although
invited six times to appear during the 82d Congress.
"Copies of said amendments, and all other amendments hereinafter
referred to, are attached to this notice.
"II. Incidents of encouragement of United States employees to vio-
late the law and their oaths of office or Executive orders, referred to in
the following:
"A. Amendment proposed by Mr. Fulbright to the resolution (S.
Res. 301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy,
viz:
"(5) The junior Senator from Wisconsin openly, in a public manner before
nationwide television, invited and urged employees of the Government of the
United States to violate the law and their oaths of office.
"B. Amendment proposed by Mr, Morse to the resolution (S. Res.
301 ) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz :
"(e) Openly invited and incited employees of the Government to violate the
law and their oaths of office by urging them to make available information,
including classified information, which in the opinion of the employees could
be of assistance to the junior Senator from Wisconsin in conducting his investi-
gations, even though the supplying of such information by the employees would
be illegal and in violation of Presidential order and contrary to the constitutional
rights of the Chief Executive under the separation-of-powers doctrine.
"C. Amendment proposed by Mr. Flanders to the resolution (S. Res.
301 ) to censure the Senator from AVisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz :
"(14) He has publicly incited Government employees to violate their security
oaths and serve as his personal informants, thus tending to break down the
orderly chain of command in the civil service, as well as violating the security
provisions of the Government.
"III. Incidents involving receipt or use of confidential or classified
document or other confidential information, from executive files, re-
ferred to in the following :
"A. Amendment proposed by Mr. Morse to the resolution (S. Res.
301 ) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz :
"(d) Received and made use of confidential information unlawfully obtained
from a document in executive files upon which document the Federal Bureau
of Investigation had placed its highest classification ; and offered siich informa-
tion to a lawfully constituted Senate subcommittee in the form of a spurious
document which he falsely asserted to the subcommittee to be 'a letter from the
FBI.'
"B. Amendment proposed by Mr. Flanders to the resolution (S. Res.
301 ) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz :
"(13) He received and held a valuable classified document in possible viola-
tion of the Espionage Act. (Revealed in the Army-McCarthy hearings that he
Lad improperly obtained J. Edgar Hoover's report on subversives from the Army
and failed to restore the document to properly authorized hands.) He per-
mitted the document to fall into the hands of a gossip columnist (Walter
Winchell).
10 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
"IV. Incidents involving abuses of colleagues in tlie Senate, referred
to in the following :
"A. Amendment proposed by Mr. Flanders to the resolution (S. Res.
301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz:
"(30) He has ridiculed his colleagues in the Senate, defaming them publicly
in vulgar and base language (regarding Senator Hendrickson — 'a living miracle
without brains or guts' ; on Flanders — 'Senile — I think they should get a man
with a net and take him to a good quiet place.').
"B. Amendment proposed by Mr. Morse to the resolution (S. Res.
301) to censure the Senator from AVisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz :
"(b) Unfairly accused his fellow Senators Gillette, Monroney, Hendrickson,
Hayden. and Hennings of improper conduct in carrying out tlieir duties as
Senators.
"V. Incident relating to Ralph Zwicker, a general officer of the
Army of the United States, referred to in the following:
"A. Amendment proposed by Mr. Fulbright to the resolution (S,
Res. 301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz:
"(4) Without justification, the junior Senator from Wisconsin impugned the
loyalty, patriotism, and character of Gen. Ralph Zwicker.
"B. Amendment proposed by Mr. Morse to the resolution (S. Res.
301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz:
"(c) As chairman of a committee resorted to abusive conduct in his interro-
gation of Gen. Ralph Zwicker, including a charge that General Zwicker was
unfit to wear the uniform, during the appearance of General Zwicker as a
witness before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate
Committee on Government Operations on February 18, 1954.
"C. Amendment proposed by Mr. Flanders to the resolution (S. Res.
301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz:
" (10) He has attacked, defamed, and besmirched military heroes of the United
States, either as witnesses before his committee or under the cloak of immunity
of the Senate floor (General Zwicker, General Marshall)."
"The select committee reserves the right to take thereafter such other
testimony as it may deem advisable relating "to any other matters re-
ferred to in said order of the Senate, resolution, and pi'oposed amend-
ments, or as may be developed at the hearings, and will make report
to the Senate.
"All testimony and evidence received in the hearings shall be such as
is found by the select committee to be competent, relevant, and material
to the subject matters so under inquiry, with the right of examination
and cross-examination, in general conformity to judicial proceedings
and in accordance with said order of the Senate.
"The select committee will admit, subject to said order, as competent
testimony for the record, so far as material and relevant, the official
proceedings and pertinent actions of the Senate and of any of its com-
mittees or subcommittees, taking judicial notice thereof, and using
official reprints when convenient. Following Senate tradition, \vit-
nesses may be examined by anj'^ member of the connnittee, and they
may be examined or cross-examined for the connnittee by its counsel.
AVitnesscs ma}' be examined or cross-examined either by Senator Mc-
Carthy or his counsel, but not by both, as to tlie same witness.
"The said Hon. Joseph R. McCarthy is hereby formally requested
by the said select committee of the Senate of the United States to
appear at said hearing and hearings and adjournments and continu-
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 11
ances thereof, with legal counsel, if desired by him, to be examined,
with the right to present evidence and testimony in accordance here-
with and in accordance with the said order of the Senate.
"Select Committee To Study Censure Charges
"Pursuant to Senate Order on Senate Resolution 301,
"Arthur V. Watkins, GhmrmanP
At this point I note the presence of all members of the committee
who are, of course, well known to the people who are assembled here,
and the presence of the chief counsel and the assistant chief counsel
to the committee.
I introduce JNIr. E. Wallace Chadwick, chief counsel, former Member
of the House of Representatives, and a leading and distinguished mem-
ber of the bar of the State of Pennsylvania and of the Supreme Court
of the United States.
Mr. Chadwick.
Mr. Chadwick. Thank you.
The Chairman. And assistant counsel, Guy G. de Furia, also of
Pemisylvania. Swai'thmore, Pa., a distinguished member of the bar
wlio has served as district attorney in his community and has been vei'y
active in the practice of law.
We have other members of the staff whom it will not be necessary at
this time to introduce.
Now, at the outset of this hearing, the committee desires to state in
general terms what is involved in Senate Resolution 301 and the Senate
order on it, which authorized the appointment of the select committee
to consider in behalf of the Senate the so-called Flanders resolution
of censure, together with all amendments proposed to the resolution.
The committee, in the words of the Senate order, was —
authorized to hold hearings, to sit and act at such times and places during the
sessions, recesses, and adjoiirned periods of the Senate, to require by subpena,
or otherwise, the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such cor-
respondence, books, papers, and documents, and to take such testimony as it
deems advisable, and that the committee be instructed to act and make a report
to this body prior to the adjournment sine die of the Senate in the 2d session of
the S3d Congress.
That is a broad grant of power, carrying with it a heavy respon-
sibility— a responsibility which the committee takes seriously. In
beginning its duties, the committee found a few precedents to serve
as a guide. It is true that there had been other censure resolutions
before the Senate in the past, but the acts complained of were, for
the most part, single occurrences which happened in the presence of
the Senate or one of its committees. Uiider such circumstances,
prolonged investigations and hearings were not necessary.
It should be pointed out that the some forty-odd alleged instances
of misconduct on the part of Senator McCarthy referred to this
committee are involved and complex, both with respect to matters
of fact and law. AVith reference to the time element, the incidents
are alleged to have happened within a period covering several years.
In addition, 3 Senate committees already have held hearings on 1 or
more phases of the alleged incidents of misconduct. Obviously, with
all this in mind, the committee had good reason for concluding it
faced an unprecedented situation which would require adoption of
procedures, all within the authority granted it in the Senate order,
12 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
that would enable it to perform the duties assigned within the limited
time given by the Senate.
The committee interprets its duties, functions, and responsibilities
under the Senate order to be as follows :
1. To analyze the charges set forth in the amendments and to
determine :
(a) If there were duplications which could be eliminated.
(h) If any of the charges were of such a nature that even if the
allegations were established as factually true, yet there would be
strong reasons for believing that they did not constitute a ground
for censure.
2. To thoroughly investigate all charges not eliminated under No. 1
in order to secure relevant and material facts concerning them and
the names of witnesses or records which can establish the facts at the
hearings to be held.
In this connection the committee believes it should function as an
impartial investigating agency to develop by direct contacts in the
field and by direct examination of Senate records all relevant and
material facts possible to secure.
When Senate Resolution 301 and amendments offered were referred
to the committee, the committee interprets this action to mean that
from that time on the resolution and charges became the sole respon-
sibility of the Senate. To state it another way, the Senator, or Sena-
tors, who offered resolution 301, and proposed amendments thereto,
have no legal responsibility from that point on for the conduct of
the investigations and hearings authorized by the order of the Senate.
The hearings are not to be adversary in character. Under this inter-
pretation, it became the committee's duty then to get all the facts
and material relevant to the charges irrespective of whetlier the facts
sustained the charges or showed them to be without foundation.
The foregoing statement seems to be necessary in view of a wide-
spread misunderstanding that the Senator who introduced the reso-
lution of censure into the Senate and the Senators who offered amend-
ments thereto, setting up specific charges against the Senator from
Wisconsin, are the complaining witnesses, or the parties plaintiff, in
this proceeding. That is not true, as has been explained. However,
because of the fact that they had made some study of the situation,
the committee did give them an opportunity to submit informational
documentation of the charges they had offered. Also they were asked
to submit the names of any witnesses who might have firsthand knowl-
edge of the matters charged and who could give relevant and material
testimony in the hearings.
Since matters of law also will be involved in reaching evaluation
of the facts developed, pertinent rules of the Senate and sections of
law, together with precedents' and decisions by competent tribunals,
should be briefed and made a part of the hearing record, the commit-
tee believes.
3. To hold hearings where the committee can present witnesses and
documentary evidence for the purpose of placing on record, for later
use by the Senate, the evidence and other information gathered during
the preliminary investigation period, and for the development or
additional evidence and information as the hearings proceed.
The resolution of censure presents to the Senate an issue with re-
spect to the conduct and possible punishment of one of its Members.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 13
The debate in tlie Senate preceding tlie vote to refer the matter to a
select committee made it abundantly clear that the proceedings neces-
sary to a proper disposal of the resolution and the amendments pro-
loosed, both in the Senate and in the select committee, would be judicial
or quasijudicial in nature, and for that reason should be conducted in
<a judicial manner and atmosphere, so far as compatible with the in-
vestigative finictions of the committee in its' preliminary and con-
tinuing search for evidence and information bearing on all phases of
the issues presented.
Inherent in the situation created by the resolution of censure and
the charges made, is the right of the Senator against whom the charges
were made to be present at the hearings held by the select committee.
He should also be permitted to be represented by counsel and should
have the right of cross-examination. This is somewhat contrary to
the practice by Senate committees in the past, in hearings of this
nature, but the present committee believes that the accused Senator
should have these rights. He or his counsel, but not both, shall be
permitted to make objections to the introduction of testimony, but the
argmnent on the objections may be had or withheld at the discretion
of the chairman. The Senator under charges should be permitted to
present witnesses and documentary evidence in his behalf, but, of
course, this should be done in compliance with the policy laid down
by the committee in its notice of hearing, which is a part of this record.
In general, the committee wishes it understood that the regulations
adopted are for the purpose of insuring a judicial hearing and a judi-
<;ial atmosphere as befits the importance of the issues raised. For that
reason, and in accordance with the order the committee believes to be
the sentiment of the Senate, all activities which are not permitted in
the Senate itself will not be permitted in this hearing.
4. When the hearings have closed, to prepare a report and submit
it to the Senate. Under the order creating this committee, this must
be done before the present Senate adjourns sine die.
By way of comment, let me say that the inquiry we are engaged in
is of a special character which differentiates it from the usual legisla-
tive inquiry. It involves the internal affairs of the Senate itself in
the exercise of a high constitutional function. It is by nature a judi-
cial or semijudicial function, and we shall attempt to conduct it as
such. The procedures outlined are not necessarily appropriate to
■congressional investigations and should not, therefore, be construed
as in any sense intended as a model appropriate to such inquiries.
We hope what we are doing will be found to conform to sound sena-
torial principles and traditions in the special field in which the com-
mittee is operating.
It has been said before, but it will do no harm to repeat, that the
members of this committee did not seek this appointment. The quali-
fications laid down by the Senate order creating the committee said
the committee should be made up of 3 Democrat Senators and 3 Re-
?ublican Senators. This was the only condition named in the order,
[owever, in a larger sense, the proper authorities of the Senate were
charged with the responsibility of attempting to choose members of
the Senate for this committee who coulcl and would conduct a fair
and impartial investigation and hearing. Members of the committee
deemed their selection by the Senate authorities as a trust. We realize
we are human. We know, and the American people know, that there
14 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
has been a controversy raging over the country through a number
of years in connection with the activities of the Senator against M^ioin
the resohition is directed.
Members of this committee liave been conscious of tliat controversy ;
they have seen, heard, and read of the activities, charges, and counter-
charges, and, being human, they may have at times expressed their
impressions with respect to events that were happening while they
were happening. However, each of the Senators who make up this
special select committee are mature men and with a wide background
of experience which should enable them to disregard any impressions
or preconceived notions they may have had in the past respecting the
controversies which have been going on in public for many years.
We approach this matter as a duty imposed upon us and which we
feel that we should do our very best to discharge in a proper manner.
We i-ealize the United States Senate, in a sense, is on trial, and we
hope our conduct will be such as to maintain the American sense of
fair play and the high traditions and dignity of the United States
Senate under the authority given it by the Constitution.
Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
The Chaiiusian. My attention has been called to an oversight,
which, of course, I hardly need to say, that Senator ISIcCarthy and
his counsel, Mr. Williams, are also present. I apologize for the over-
sight.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, it seems that this may be an appro-
■|)riate time for me to introduce my associate counsel who have not
heretofore been introduced to the committee, Mr. Brent Bozell of the
California bar, and Miss Agnes Neill of my office.
The Chairman. We are glad to have them present with us.
Mr. Williams. They sit immediately behind us.
The Chairman. This probably is an appropriate time to permit
Senator McCarthy to make an opening statement. However, before
he makes it, I want to call attention to the fact that this morning we
were given two copies of this statement and we have attempted in the
rather last-minute rusli before coming in here, to go over it.
The condition was made that it should be relevant and material.
It will not be, of course, a sworn statement. It is not testimony.
It is customary ordinarily in court to permit a statement of this kind.
I want to say that we recognize that most of it is not material and
relevant to the issues in this hearing as we understand them. How-
ever, we are not going to prevent Senator McCarthy from making
that statement, and we will now permit him to proceed.
Senator McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. xA.nd we want it understood that this is not a prece-
dent to the reception of any matter in the way of testimony or evidence
that is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. McCAETHY, UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
Senator McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, members of the conunittee, I have requested several
minutes at the beginning of these proceedings to make a statement.
I am grateful for permission to do so. This is a serious matter to
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 15
me and, I think, to the country. It weighs heavily on me and I would
like my own feelings known, in broad outline at least, before the com-
mittee begins to consider the evidence.
Several years ago, Mr. Chairman, I became convinced that this
countrj^ and its institutions were in imminent peril of destruction by
international communism. I learned from dedicated Americans,
theretofore closer to the situation than I, that the threat was not just
from the outside, but that the agents of the Soviet Union were firmly
entrenched in our midst; and in particular that their success in in-
filtrating our Government had given the Soviet Union access to our
most important secrets as well as a powerful and deadly voice in deter-
mining our foreign policies. I became convinced that subversives in
the American Government had played a large role in the long and
tragic train of "defeats that this country and the free world have
sultered at the liands of the Soviet Union since our entrance into the
Second World War.
I was late, Mr. Chairman — we all were late, although I daresay some
of us were earlier than others — in appreciating the immediacy and
enormity of the danger. For it had been with us many, many years.
Once the weaknesses of our secm'ity system had been brought home
to me, I conceived it my duty to expend every effort of mind and body
to fight subversion, to help clean traitors and potential traitors out of
the Government. 1 conceived this to be my first duty to my constitu-
ents and to my country. I still do, Mr. Chairman.
I have carried on my part in the fight as best I know how.
Let me say that I believe much progress has been made in the fight
against subversion. Yet all the while, success has been in jeopardy;
it is still in jeopardy.
As I see it, the fight has been obstructed — often successfully — by
three groups : No. 1, by those against whom it is directed, the Commu-
nists and their sympathizers ; No. 2, by those who do not sympathize
with communism but who deny that it presents a seiious threat ; and
No. 3, by those avIio profess to appreciate the strengtl\ of the Commu-
nist fifth column but who balk at taking vigorous measures to stamp
it out.
These three groups, Mr. Chairman, so differently motivated, have
rallied around a common standard. They have shaken hands on the
proposition that vigorous anticommunism somehow represents a
greater danger to America than communism itself.
If, after all is said and done, tliis unholy alliance should have its
way, then I propose the premise that holds it together — that vigorous
anticommunism is more dangerous than communism — as a fitting
epitaph on the grave of American civilization.
May I repeat that, Mr. Chairman. I say if, after all is said and
done, if this unholy alliance should have its way, then I propose that
the premise that holds it together — namely, that vigorous anticommu-
nism is more dangerous than communism — will be a fitting epitaph
on the grave of American civilization.
It has been said that I am the cause of disunity in the country and
in my party. There is disunity, and perhaps my activities have been
a part of its cause. But I had always thought that it takes two sides
who disagree to bring about disunity; andthat either side, by ceas-
ing to disagree with the other, can, of course, end the disunity.
16 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Where there is disunity on matters of principle, then there ought
to be disunity. Otherwise there is hypocrisy and betrayal of prin-
ciple. I do not propose to be a hypocrite, and I will not betray prin-
ciple. Nor do I urge this course on men who oppose me.
Furthermore, for my part, Mr. Chairman, I shall never attempt to
bring about unity by trying, on specious grounds, to silence my oppo-
nents and destroy them, and thus cut off the debate. I believe that
debate should continue on the merits of the questions that divide us,
these questions being: Whether there is real danger from Communist
subversion, and, if so, how to cope with it.
As I say, I believe that the fight of the American people against
Communist infiltration, while it is far from finished, has achieved
much success. I believe that the record shows that I have played
some small part in that achievement. I cannot help but be proud
of this.
But now it is urged that I be censured.
I w^ould be untrutliful if I agreed that my accusers were not affected
by ulterior, political considerations. I believe that my accusers either
entertain such motives themselves, or are unwitting victims of power-
ful pressure groups in the country who are best characterized as oppo-
nents of a vigorous fight against communism.
Be that as it may, this committee has its duty. I recognize that duty.
Four weeks ago I hoped that the Senate would consider and vote
on the censure motion. The Senate decided instead to refer the
charges to this committee. While I preferred a vote then and there,
perhaps this procedure is best after all. I do hope, however, thai:
each of the charges made against me on the Senate floor will be either
considered by the committee, or declared by it unworthy of con-
sideration.
May I repeat that, Mr. Chairman. I hope that each of the charges
made against me on the Senate floor will be either considered by the
committee, or declared by it unworthy of consideration.
A motion of censure, whatever motives prompt the making of it,
is under the Constitution a legal matter. Consequently, I have
retained counsel, Mr. Edward Bennett Williams and Mr. Brent Bozell,
and I now put the case in their hands.
But I am here and I shall remain at the disposal of the committee
to give it what assistance I can. I am hopeful that these matters
will be disposed of as quickly as is consistent with a careful weighing
of them. I have been kept from my job, Mr. Chairman, since last
March, and I know I must get back to that job as soon as I possibly
can.
The Chairman. Now we proceed to a consideration of the matters
which the committee deemed of first importance in connection with
these hearings. No. 1, "Incidents of contempt of the Senate or a
senatorial committee."
I will ask our chief counsel, Mr. Chadwick, to read the specifications
under that first category.
Mr. CiiADwacK. Mr. Chairman, the matters of inquii-y under the
first item under schedule I, are "Incidents of contempt of the Senate
or a senatorial committee," and reference is made therein to the
amendment by Senator Fulbright, subparagraph (3), and quoting:
Although repeatedly invited to testify by a committee of this Senate headed
by the Senator from Iowa, the junior Senator from Wisconsin denounced the
committee and contemptuously refused to comply with its request.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 17
B, the amendment of Senator Morse, subparagraph (a) —
declined to comply with a request made by letter on November 21, 1952, by the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate Com-
mittee on Rules and Administration, that he appear before the subcommittee to
supply information concerning certain specific matters involving his activities
as a Member of the Senate.
And three, the amendment of Senator Flanders, subparagraph (17),
quoting :
He has continued to show his contempt for the Senate by failing to explain
in any manner the six charges contained in the Hennings-Hayden-Hendrickson
report, which was filed in January 1953. This involves his bank transactions,
possible income-tax evasions, and the Lustron deal. The taint persists until he
satisfactorily explains these mattei-s, which he refused to do, although invited
six times to appear, during the S2d Congress.
The Chairman. That conchides the specification with respect to this
particular category, No. I, list of incidents.
Now, the Chair will state at this point that the committee under-
stands that charge to refer to the actions of Senator McCarthy with
respect to requests of the committee to appear before it. It does not
construe it in any way as involving the truth or falsity of the matters
which the committee, presided over by Senator Gillette, later by Sena-
tor Hennings or by Senator Hayden — I mean the subcommittee — it
does not involve any of those charges, whether they were true or false.
The matter goes directly to the conduct of the Senator from Wiscon-
sin with respect to the answer to the summonings and the requests of
that committee to appear before it.
Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I should like to be heard by
the committeee at this time on a motion to dismiss that charge on the
ground that it is legally insufficient on its face as a predicate for the
censure of Senator McCarthy.
Nw, I should like to predicate my motion upon two basic constitu-
tional and legal principles, and call the precedents incident thereto
to the attention of the Senate committee at this time.
I ask for leave to make this motion now because I have not had op-
porunity heretofore to make it. This is the first occasion upon which
I could present this legal matter to the committee, and I shall do it
with the utmost dispatch, if I am granted permission to make the
motion at this time.
The Chairman. If you will statue them briefly.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. I will say in the beginning, Mr. Williams, that the
committee had to pass on those matters earlier, and the reason they are
presented here is because we have determined that question. How-
ever, we will hear from you.
Mr. Williams. I believe, sir, that there are overriding considera-
tions of a constitutional level that are more important than any of the
individuals or issues involved in this hearing, and I will try to be as
brief as possible, sir, in the interests and economy of time in present-
ing our position on it, but I ask you to bear with me while I do call
the attention of the committee to the outstanding precedents in this
matter.
The Chairman. You may proceed with the oral statement. How-
ever, if you Avish to file a brief on that matter, the committee would
consider it that way, because it wants to move ahead with its testimony..
18 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. I shall file a brief, too, Mr. Chairman, for the use
of tlie committee, but the statement that I should like to make at this
time is an oral statement on this subject.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Mr. Willi A]\rs. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
believe that the char^'es contained in the first category and classifica-
tion of charges as presented by this committee on August 24, 1954,
for two clear reasons, fail to present a basis upon which a resolution
of censure can be predicated in the Senate of the United States. One
of these reasons, if the committee please, is an overriding constitu-
tional reason, a reason that has been supported by the judicial and
senatorial precedent since the beginning of our country, unbroken in
tradition. It is a constitutional argument predicated upon the law,
sirs, and I might say to you that Senator McCarthy, who is my client
in these proceedings, has evidenced a desire to me not to pitch his
defense on this predicate because he wants to meet this charge squarely
on the merits, and we do intend to meet it squarely on the merits. But
I have convinced him that I should be derelict in my duty as counsel
before this committee if I did not call to the attention of this com-
mittee every precedent that has taken place on this subject since
the beginning of the Senate, tlie first preceden,t going back to 1792.
And so T say, by way of recap, that our position is two-pronged,
and I should like to address myself first to the proposition that this
charge is insufficient on its face legally and precedentially, by virtue
of the interpretation of the Constitution by the Senate of the United
States, and then I should like to go to the very merits of the cliarge as
evidenced by the charge itself, and I shall not depart from the record,
because as a lawyer that I am confined to the record on a motion to
dismiss at the outset of these hearings.
The fundamental proposition to which I should like to address my-
self first, and which I believe is of overriding and transcendental im-
portance to this committee, is this : Never in the history of the Senate,
never in the history of the United States judicial system, has there
been a censure imposed upon a Member of Congress for conduct ante-
dating the inception of the Congress which is hearing tlie censure
charges. And this is for a very fundamental constitutional and legal
reason.
The predicate for censure stems from article I, section 5 of the
Constitution, which says that each House may pimish its Members
for disorderly behavior.
The purpose of that, as we read our constitutional history, was so
that each Congress could preserve its legislative processes free from
corruption and disorder. It was not to provide a basis for one Con-
gress to review the conduct of an individual throughout some other
Congress that antedated it and perhaps motivated, sometimes, by
partisan and political considerations, impose upon him a censure.
And this was considered from our earliest times.
Three times, gentlemen of this committee, three times the Supreme
Court of the United States has said in unequivocable, clear, and un-
ambiguous language, that the power of Congress to punish for con-
tempt, which is the charge that we are considering here this morning,
is a power that dies with the Congress wherein the contempt was
allegedly committed.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 19"
It enunciated this basic proposition of law in the case of Ande7'son v.
Dunn (6 Wheat. 204). It enunciated it again in Jurney v. Mac-
Cracken (294 U. S. 125) ; and it enunciated it a third time in United
States V. Br-yan (339 U. S. 323), so recently as within the last 5 or &
years.
Not only have we had an unbroken line of judicial precedent upon
this subject, but the Senate itself and the House of Representatives
itself have from time to time carefully weighed and evaluated this
proposition. And I feel that it would be helpful to this committee —
and I conceive that to be at least half of my function in this case — I
feel that it would be helpful to this committee if I made a very cursory
rundown — and I promise to be brief — as brief as the exigencies of the
circumstances permit — to call these precedents to the committee's
attention.
The Chairman. We suggest that you do that in a brief.
This matter has been considered by the committee and it has had
to do that in selecting the charges to be heard. And if you will submit
that in a brief — we have precedents — we do not care to go into a long-
legal argument — if you make the argument we probably ought to have
developed what we have in the legal setup — we have obtained that in
our research — and when you get through with that probably the whole
day would be consumed — that can all be taken care of in a brief that
can be submitted by you in giving us the precedents.
Our counsel and others have also run down the precedents. We do
not agree with j^ou. And that is obvious or we would not have the
charges before us at this time.
Mr. Williams. I think that is all the more reason
The Chairman. You can submit vour brief — we will permit vou to
submit a brief on that point.
Mr. Williams. May I say this, Mr. Chairman, when you say to me,
sir, that the committee does not agree with me it demonstrates to me
all the more reason for permitting me to make an oral argument on
this subject, because if the committee has a predeliction and predispo-
sition on this legal matter as we begin the hearings, then certainly I
should be afforded as counsel for Senator McCarthy at least a hearing
on these propositions of law.
The Chairman. You are not being denied that hearing — you can
file your briefs and that will be considered by the committee.
We necessarily in this board of inquiry, which is not exactly a court
trial — it is in the nature of a judicial proceeding — had to make some
preliminary determinations or we could not move forward at all.
You can submit that brief and we will reserve the question, but we
would like to go on with the proceedings, if permitted. You can state
the general grounds of your objection, and I think that any court
would permit you to do that, but I think any court would also require
you, if it deemed it necessary, to submit a brief on tliat point.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I shall abide, of course, by your
decision this morning and throughout this heai'ing so long as I am
counsel, but I would like to say to you, sir, that I feel that this is the
heart of our defense. On this first charge, I do intend to submit
written argument, but I should like to ask the committee, if I may have
just one half hour to present our views on this matter which I regard
as the heart of our defense. And I understood as I entered this case
that it was to be judicial in nature. I understood from my reading of
"20 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
the precedents that a proceeding of this kind is judicial in nature and
that all of the rights that adhere to any accused in any tribunal are
to adhere to the Senator who is before you today.
And I must, at the risk of being derelict in my duty, ask once again
for the right to present orally this position which I believe to be so
important, and which I believe cannot adequately be presented in a
written brief.
The Chairman. You are not being denied any of your rights. I
think the Chair is acquainted with court procedure and rights that may
be permitted. And I know when counsel can submit briefs, when the
court is in doubt or wishes to have the matter further heard.
We are willing to consider the matter at length when you have filed
your briefs, but we have made the ruling and we will now proceed with
the testimony.
Now, Mr. Chadwick, have you checked the Senate records with
reference to the charges, the specifications under incident listed as
No.l?
Mr. Chadwick. I have, sir.
The Chairman. Did you make an investigation appertaining to all
of the documents that may have a bearing on that matter ?
Mr. Chadwick. I understood that it was a part of my duties to find
not only matters which might be affirmative in support of the resolu-
tion, but also any matter which might be in fairness reflected in these
hearings for the benefit of Senator McCarthy, and I did my best.
The Chairman. You may read what you have obtained there and
mention each exhibit as 3^011 go along.
The Chair is acquainted with this material — has studied it some-
what— so that the Chair can anticipate what is going to be presented.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, I call j^our attention and ask you to
take judicial notice or legislative notice, for those wlio are more par-
ticular in the use of words, with respect to proceedings in the Senate
on August 6, 1951, being Senate Resolution No. 187, introduced by
Senator Benton to investigate Senator McCarthy.
The record will show that the President of the Senate referred Reso-
lution No. 187, introduced by Senator Benton, to the Senate Com-
mittee on Rules and Administration. And with your permission I
will now read the substance of Senate Resolution No. 187.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Mr. Chadwick. From the printed copy. Senate Resolution No. 187,
I will omit the technical matter at the beginning and commence with
the word :
Resolution
Whereas the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of the Committee on
"Rules and Administration has made a nnanimous report to such committee with
respect to the 1950 Maryland senatorial general election ; and
Whereas such report contains findings with respect to the financing of the
campaign of Senator .Tohn Marshall Butler as follows :
"1. As a result of the investigation and hearings of this subcommittee, Jon M.
Jonkel, the campaign manager of Senator P.utler. has been indicted, pled guilty
to, and has been sentenced for violation of the Maryland election laws for failure
to properly report contributions and expenditures in the Butler campaign.
"2. Not only were substantial sums of contributions and expenditures not
■properly reported to Maryland authorities as required by law, but also a proper
accounting was not made to the Secretary of the Senate as required by the Fed-
eral Corrupt Practices Act"; and
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 21
Whereas sucli report, with respect to the literature used in the campaign of
Senator John Marshall Butler, contains findings as follows :
li-J^ * * ;!=
"The tabloid From the Record contains misleading half-truths, misrepresenta-
tions, and false innuendoes that maliciously and without foundation attack the
loyalty and patriotism not only of former Senator Millard Tydings, who won
the Distinguished Service Cross for battlefield heroism in World War I, but
also the entire membership of the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1950.
"2. Its preparation, publication, and distribution were the result of a combi-
nation of forces, including Senator Butler's own campaign organization.
"3. The tabloid, disregarding simple decency and common honesty, was de-
signed to create and exploit doubts about the loyalty of former Senator Tydings.
"4. It could never have been the intention of the framers of the first amend-
ment to the Constitution to allow, xinder the guise of freedom of the press, the
publication of any portrayal, whether in picture form or otherwise, of the char-
acter of the composite picture as it appeared in the tabloid From the Record.
It was a shocking abuse of the spirit and intent of the first amendment to the
Constitution.
"5. The tabloid From the Record was neither published nor in fact paid for
by the Young Democrats for Butler. Their alleged sponsorship for this publica-
tion was nothing more than a false front organization for the publication of
the tabloid by the Butler campaign headquarters and outsiders associated with
It. In the judgment of the subcommittee, this is a violation of the Federal and
State laws requiring persons responsible for such publications to list the organiza-
tions and its officers" ; and
• Whereas such subcommittee report contains findings with respect to the par-
ticipation of Senator .Joseph R. McCarthy in sucli campaign as follows:
"3. Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, of Wisconsin, was actively interested in the
■campaign to the extent of making his staff available for work on research, pic-
tures, composition, printing of the tabloid From the Record. Members of lais
staff acted as couriers of funds between Washington and the Butler campaign
headquartei'S in Baltimore. Evidence showed that some of the belatedly re-
ported campaign funds were delivered through his office. His staff also was
instrumental in materially assisting in the addressing, mailing, and planning of
the picture-postcard phase of the campaign" ; and
Whereas such subcommittee unanimously included in its specific conclusions
and recommendation to the committee the following:
"5. The question of unseating a Senator for acts committed in a senatorial
election should not be limited to the candidates in such elections. Any sitting
Senator, regardless of whether he is a candidate in the election himself, should
he subject to expulsion by action of the Senate, if it finds sucli Senator engaged
in practices and behavior that make him, in the opinion of the Senate, unfit to
hold the position of United States Senator" Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate is
authorized and directed to proceed with such consideration of the report of its
Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections with respect to the 19.50 Maryland
senatorial general election, which was made pursuant to Senate Resolution 250,
81st Congress, April 13, 1950, and to make such further investigation with re-
spect to the participation of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy in the 1950 senatorial
campaign of Senator John Marshall Butler, and such investigation with respect
to his other acts since his election to the Senate, as may be appropriate to en-
-able such committee to determine whether or not it should initiate action with
a view toward the expulsion from the United States Senate of the said Senator
Joseph R. McCarthy.
The Chairman. I may say that the readinsi: of the resolution was not
related as to whether it was either true or false, I mean with respect
to the charf^es, but merely to show that the resolution had been intro-
duced in the Senate of the United States, and that it was before a
•certain committee.
Now, you have the record with respect to the resolution ?
Mr. Chadwick. I have the record of the legislative history of the
resolution, sir.
Report of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections to the Committee on
Rules and Administration, pursuant to Senate Resolution 187 and Senate Reso-
lution 304, page 1.
22 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The resolution was referred by the President of the Senate to the
Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and, in turn, to its
Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections for proper action.
The Chairman. You may proceed with the record.
Mr. Chadt\'ick. Mr. Chairman, further support of the matters cog-
nizable under the first paragraph — I request your leave, and I have
been directed, to read into the record from the exhibits in the report
of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections to the Committee
on Eules and Administration with respect to Senate Resolution 187
and Senate Resolution 304.
I will proceed to do so.
The Chairman. What are you going to read ?
Mr. Chadwick. Read the letters, sir, from the report of the
committee.
The Chairman. Letters between whom?
Mr. Chadwick. Well, the first one will be a letter from Senator
Guy M. Gillette to Hon. Joseph R. McCarthy.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Mr. Wiixi.ams. In the economy of time, Mr. Chaii-man, Senator
McCarthy is perfectly willing to stipulate to the authenticity of these
letters, instead of taking the time of this committee to read them.
Mr. Chadwick. It is not a question of authenticity.
The Chairman. We want them read into the record, sir. We will
accept a stipulation with respect to the authenticity, but it is the
purpose of the committee to have them placed in the record by the
reading of them.
Mr. Williams. I am thinking of the economy of time. They could
be copied by the reporter.
The Chairman. If it takes too much time in the course of these
proceedings, we will think of economy measures, but at the moment,
we do not think we need to so do.
Mr. Chadwick. I desire to explain for the purposes of the record
that these letters will be read, including their exhibit number jn the
report from which they are drafted, for the purpose of convenient
reference in the future.
I shall read the date, the address, the body of each letter which I
read, and the name of the author of the letter, which was signed
thereby.
The first is exhibit No. 3, which happens to commence on page 61
of the report in question. It is a letter dated September 25, 1951.
It is addressed to Hon. Joseph R. McCarthy, United States Senate,
and it is signed by Senator Guy M. Gillette.
It reads as follows
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Case.
Senator Case. Was this date prior to the resignation of Senator
Gillette as chairman? Was he chairman at the time he wrote this
letter ?
The Chairman. The record, I think, shows that he was.
Mr. Williams. We will so stipulate.
The CiiAiRiMAN. He was chairman of the Subcommittee on Privi-
leges and Elections, which is a subcommittee of the Committee on
Rules and Administration of the United States Senate.
HEARENGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 23
The record will also show and we will take judicial notice of that
fact, as we are of all these other matters, that it was referred to a
subcommittee — that is, under Eesolution 187.
You may proceed,
Mr, Chadwick (reading) :
My Dear Joe: I promised to tell you the decision of the Subcommittee on
Privileges and Elections as to procedure as soon as they had made the decision.
They are goinsr to take up the Benton resolution at 9 : 30 a. m., Friday, September
28, in room 457. At that time they are going to hear Senator Benton's state-
ment. They voted to hear the Senator in executive session but also voted that
you could be present if you so desired and if time permitted, to make a state-
ment at this same meeting. It was also decided that there should be no cross-
examination except by the members of the subcommittee.
A further decision was made that if additional evidence is taken, it will be
governed by rules of procedure determined after this first meeting.
With personal greetings, I am,
Sincerely,
Gut M. Gillette.
There are the identifying initials "GMG : dd,"
Exhibit Xo. 4, a letter dated October 1, 1951, from Senator Gillette
to Senator McCarthy, addressed as follows :
Hon. Joseph R. McCarthy,
United States Senator, Washinffton, D. C.
My Dear Senator: On last Friday, September 28, Senator Benton appeared
before the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections and presented a statement
in support of his resolution looking to action pertaining to your expulsion from
the Senate. You had been advised that you could attend this meeting which was
a public one, but without the right of cross-examination of Senator Benton.
The subcommittee recessed to reassemble on call of the chairman. The chair-
man announced at the close of the meeting that an opportunity would be ac-
corded Senator McCarthy to appear and make any statement he wished to make
concerning the matter and with the right of Senator Benton to be present, but
without any right on the part of Senator Benton to cross-examine you in any
way. This is to notify you that this action was taken and the subcommittee
will be glad to hear you at an hour mutually convenient. It is hoped that if you
desire to appear and make any statement in connection with this matter, that a
time can be fixed before the 10th of October. I should be glad to have your
comment relative to a convenient time for you if you desire to come before us.
If you do not so desire I shall appreciate it if you will advise us of that fact.
With personal greetings, I am,
Sincerely,
Guy M. Gillette.
Mr. Chadwick, Next is exhibit No. 5, which is identified, the third
of these exhibits, in the text of that exhibit as a "copy" in brackets,
and it quotes "A," which is not too" clear to me, but it is on the paper,
and dated October 4, 1051. It is a letter to the Honoral)le Guy M.
Gillette, from Senator McCarthy, and it reads as follows :
Dear Guy : This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 1 in which
y()u offer me an opportunity to appear before your committee and answer Sena-
tor Benton's charges.
Frankly, Guy, I have not and do not intend to even read, much less answer,
Benton's smear attack. I am sure yon realize that the Benton type of material
can be found in the D'aily Worker almost any day of the week and -Rail con-
tinue to flow from the mouths and pens of the camp followers as long as I con-
tinue my fight against Communists in Government.
With kindest personal regards, I am,
Sincerely yours,
Joe McCarthy.
It is identified by the initials "McC :ct,"
24 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The next exhibit is exhibit No. 6, also designated as "copy'' and
it quotes the letter "B." It is dated December 6, 1951. It is a letter
from Senator McCarthy to Senator Guy Gillette, addressed to him a&
chairman of the Elections Subcommittee of the United States Senate^
Washington, D. C, and reads as follows :
Dear Mr. Chairman : As you of course know, your Elections Subcommittee
has the power and the duty to carefully investigate any valid claims of irregu-
larity or dishonest in the conduct of campaigns for the United States Senate.
As you and all the members of your subcommittee know or should know, the
Elections Subcommittee, unless given further power by the Senate, is restricted
to matters having to do with elections. The Senate could, of course, by a ma-
jority vote give your subcommittee power to conduct an unlimited investigation,
of any Senator. Such power was not asked for nor given to your Elections
Subcommittee.
However, over the past months, it has been repeatedly brought to my attentioa
that a horde of investigators hired by your committee at a cost of tens of thou-
sands of dollars of taxpayers' money, has been engaged exclusively in trying
to dig up on McCarthy material covering periods of time long before he was even
old enough to be a candidate for the Senate — material which can have no con-
ceivable connection with his election or any other election. This Is being done
in complete disregard of the limited power of your Elections Subcommittee. The-
obvious purpose is to dig up campaign material for the Democratic Party for th&
coming campaign against McCarthy.
When your Elections Subcommittee, without Senate authorization, spends-
tens of thousands of taxpayers' dollars for the sole purpose of digging up cam-
paign material against McCarthy, then the committee is guilty of stealing just
as clearly as though the members engaged in picking the pockets of the taxpayers
and turning the loot over to the Democratic National Committee.
If one of the administration lackeys were chairman of this committee, I would
not waste the time or energy to write and point out the committee's complete-
dishonesty, but from you, Guy, the Senate and the country expect honest adher-
ence to the rules of tlie Senate.
If your committee wanted to dig up campaign material against McCarthy at
the expense of the taxpayers, you were in all honesty bound to first get the power
to do so from the Senate, which the Senate had a right to give and might have
given. But your committee did not risk asking for such power. Instead, your
committee decided to spend tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money to
aid Benton in his smear attack upon McCarthy.
Does this mean, that if a Benton asks your committee to do so, you will put an^
unlimited number of investigators at unlimited cost investigating the background
of tlie other 95 Senators so their opponents can use this material next election?
Or is this a rule which applies only to him who fights Communists in Government?
Let's get an answer to this, Guy. The people of America are entitled to your
answer.
While the actions of Benton and some of the committee members do not sur-
prise me, I cannot iTuderstand your being willing to label Guy Gillette as a man
who will head a committee which is stealing from the pockets of the American
taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars and then using this money to protect the
Democratic Party from the political effect of the exposure of Communists in
Government. To take it upon yourself to hire a horde of investigators and spend
tens of thousands of dollars without any authorization to do so from the Senate
is labeling your Elections Subcommittee even more dishonest than was the
Tydings committee.
The chairman suggests that one of the other copies, which is a
photographic transition of the letters from the report, Mr. Williams,
would be easier to read only because the book is hard to turn.
Mr. Williams. The easier course I am still willing to stipulate to,
]Mr. Chadwick, that we can regard all of this as in the record right
now, and I will so stipulate.
Mr. Chadwick. I recall your stipulation.
The Chairman. I understand that, and the committee desires to
have this read into the record.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 25
I mentioned the matter of time before. This is important, and
there is enough time to take on the matters that we need to do now.
When I referred to the matter of time with reference to your offer
to argue the legal questions, I expected to give you time to do that in
a brief that we could sit down and consider, but this committee is not
so set up that we can determine all these legal questions.
The questions that are referred to the committee we gather evidence
on. The Senate may decide we are dead wrong, and it may decide
we are right. They are the final arbiter. We are only an agent of
the Senate to gather the evidence in matters of law and all that sort
of thing, and we prefer to have the legal arguments, except barely
the statement of the grounds, legal arguments with reference to the
precedents and all that sort of thing, in detail put before us in briefs.
We consider it much better that way. That is the reason I made the
ruling I did before.
Senator EmT:N. Mr. Chairman, could I make one statement com-
mending the chairman for his ruling ? My father was a trial lawyer
in North Carolina for 65 years. I entered his law office 32 years ago,
and when I did he gave me this advice — he said :
Salt down tbe facts. The law will keep.
And I understand that was the effect of the chairman's ruling —
that we should get the facts first and then pass on legal questions when
the facts are in.
The Chairman. You state it far better than I could.
Mr. Williams. I am certainly willing to abide by that, provided
I do get an opportunity to orally argue these propositions, because I
feel that is the heart of our defense, and I further feel that it is abso-
lutely necessary, in the light of the Chair's statement, that there is
some predisposition on the part of the committee on this matter of law.
The Chaiemax. May I say this : In order to get before the Senate
material on these various charges, it is necessary to have evidence pro-
duced, and we can have the legal arguments produced, but we are not
the final arbiters.
We are merely the agents of the Senate to gather together this
information and to use such rules and regulations as we can in screen-
ing out and trying to keep the investigation on the track.
If we were the final arbiter, or if we were a court, that would be
another matter. Then you would be entitled probably to present in
more detail your arguments as you go along.
However, most courts recognize the facts that they will take the
statement of the grounds and allow the matter to be presented more
in detail in briefs, particularly if there is any doubt on it, and I think
in this case you should present those arguments in a brief, because
the Senate sliould have before it the argimients pro and con.
But it isn't necessary for us to sit and listen to that as a matter of
law, because you have stated now the general situation.
I overruled your motion, so we will proceed now to take the evidence.
In any event, we ought to get this evidence because the Senate later
on may decide that we are right or it may decide you are right, but if
they decide we are right, and we struck the testimon}^ and didn't take
any of it, then there would be nothing before the Senate to work on,
so we want that information.
26 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. Mr, Chairman, I am sure that you will understand
if I most respectfully continue throughout this hearing to insist on my
right to be heard on these propositions.
The Chairman. That is right, and you will understand we have an
obligation here to perform, and that is to rule, and to rule properly.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And to state the rulings, and if we are wrong we
will consider these matters in committee, and if the other members of
the committee believe the chairman is wrong, the chairman is willing
to be corrected, and we will indicate clearly where we think we have
made an error during the course of the hearing.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
JSIr. Chadwick. ]Mr. Chairman, my associate calls my attention to
the fact that in reading exhibit 6, which I have just completed, I men-
tioned the date as December 6, 1954. If that is true, I desire to correct
that. The correct date is December 6, 1951 .
E:^liibit,7 is a letter from Senator Gillette to Senator McCarthy,
dated December 6, 1951, and there is noted in the head in brackets, the
word "copy."
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy,
United States Senate, Washbu/ton, D. C.
My Dear Senator : Your letter dated December 6 and referring to the work
of the Senate Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections in the discharge of its
duties relative to Resolution No. 187 has just been received by messenger. This
resolution, on its introduction by Senator Benton, was referred by the Senate to
the Committee on Rules and Administration, of which you are a member. This
committee, in its turn, referred the resolution to its Subcommittee on Privileges
aud Elections, of whicli I am the chairman.
Our subcommittee certainly did not seek or welcome the unpleasant task of
studying and reporting on a resolution Involving charges looking to the ouster
of one of our colleagues from the Senate. However, ovir duty was clear in the
task assigned to us and we shall discharge that duty in a spirit of utmost fairness
to all concerned and to the Senate. We have ordered our staff to study and
report to us on both the legal and factual phases of the resolution. On receiving
these reports the subcommittee will then determine its course in the light of its
responsibilities and authority.
Your information as to the use of a large staff and the expenditure of a large
sum of money in investigations relative to the resolution is, of course, erroneous.
May I also assure you that no individuals or groups outside of the subcommittee
membership have had or will liave any influence whatever in the work assigned
to us to do.
With personal greetings, I am
Sincerely,
Guy M. Gillette.
Identified by the initials "GMG : cc."
The next exhibit is exhibit No. 8, also marked in parentheses, "copy,"
and the letter "C." It is a letter dated December 7, 1951, by Senator
McCarthy to Senator Gillette, and addressed to him as chairman of
the Subcommittee on Elections of the United States Senate, Wash-
ington, D. C. :
Dear Senator Gillette : I would very much appreciate receiving the following
information :
(1) The number of people employed by the Elections Subcommittee, together
with information on their employment background, the salaries they receive, and
the length of time they have been employed.
(2) The names of tlie above individuals who have been working on the
investigation of Senator McCarthy.
(3) Wliether they have been instructed to restrict their investigation to mat-
ters concerning elections.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 27
(4) If the investigators have been ordered to cover matters other than either
my election or any other election in which I took part, then —
the printed word is "than" —
the theory of the law under which you feel an election subcommittee is entitled
to hire investigators to go into matters other than those concerned with elections.
I am sure that you will agree that I am entitled to this information.
Signed, "Joe McCarthy," and with the words, "Sincerely yours."
The next exhibit is exhibit 9, also containing the word "copy" in
brackets. It is a letter dated December 11, 1951, from Senator
Guy M. Gillette to the Honorable Joseph R. McCarthy, addressed to
the United States Senate, Washington, D. C. :
My Dear Senator: I received your letter dated December 7 in which you
make inquiry and request for certain specific information.
As you are a member of the Rules Committee, I feel, as you suggested, that
you are entitled to the information relative to the personnel employed by the
Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections. Y-^ur first request is as to the
number of people employed by the Elections Subcommittee, their salaries, and
the length of time they have been employed. The following is the list employed
by the subcommittee —
The following is tabulated. It is tabulated under "Employed,"
"Position," "Separated (3)," "Basic salary per annum."
This completes the list of employees of the subcommittee. Three other
employees of the Rules Committee have been performing work for the subcom-
mittee, including Mr. John P. Moore, the chief counsel. You will note that
3 of the 6 employees of the subconuuittee were taken on in a temporary capacity
after the middle of October and completed their assiirned work within a few
weeks time. These men have done some work in connection with the Ohio
senatorial hearing.
You make further inquiry as to what theory of the law the subcommittee
holds in connection with its investigatory work. We are not working under any
"theory." All the powers that we have derived from dele.:,'ated responsibilities
assigned to us by the Senate Committee on Rales and Administration. We do
not have, and could not have, any power other than so derived as a subagency
of the standing Committee on Rules and Administration —
with identifying initials.
The next exhibit is a letter dated December 19, 1951, exhibit No. 10,
and is a letter which bears at the head the word "Copy" in brackets,
and the letter "D." It is a letter signed by Senator McCarthy ad-
dressed to Senator Guy Gillette, chairman of the Subcommitee on
Elections of the United States Senate, Washington, D. C. :
Dear Senator Gillette : On December 7, I wrote you as follows :
(1) The number of people employed by "the Elections Subcommittee, together
with information on their employment background, the salaries they receive,
and the length of time they have been employed.
Parenthetically, I should state that apparently— strike that out,
Mr. Reporter. The accuracy will turn up later.
(2) The names of the above individuals who have been working on the in-
vestigation of Senator McCartliy.
(3) Whether they have been instructed to restrict their investigation to mat-
ters concerning elections.
(4) If the investigators have been ordered to cover matters other than either
my election or any other election in which I took part, then the theory of the
law under which you feel an Elections Subcommittee is entitled to hire investi-
gators to go into matters other than those concerned with elections.
I am sure you will agree that I am entitled to this information.
52461—54-
28 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
That is with reference to a letter which has ah-eady been read into
the record. The letter proceeds :
On December 11 you wrote giving me the names of those employed by the sub-
committee, stating that two others, whom you did not name, were also doing
work for the subcommittee. You did not give me the employment background
of the investigators as I requested. Why, Senator, do you refuse to give me
the employment background of those individuals?
You also failed to tell me whether the investigators have been instructed to
extend their investigation beyond matters having to do with elections.
You state that the only power which your subcommittee has was derived from
the full committee. The full committee appointed you chairman of an Elections
Subcommittee, but gave you no power whatsoever to hire investigators and spend
vast amounts of money to make investigations having nothing to do with elec-
tions. Again may I have an answer to my questions as to why you feel you are
entitled to spend the taxpayers' money to do the work of the Democratic National
Committee.
As I have previously stated, you and every member of your subcommittee who
Is responsible for spending vast amounts of money to hire investigators, pay
their traveling expenses, etc., on matters not concerned with elections, is just as
dishonest as though he or she picked the pockets of the taxpayers and turned the
loot over to the Democratic National Committee.
I wonder if I might have a frank, honest answer to all the questions covered
in my letter of December 7. Certainly as a member of the Rules Committee and
as a member of the Senate, I am entitled to this information. Your failure to
give this information highlights the fact that your subcommittee is not concerned
with investigating elections, but concerned with dishonestly spending the tax-
payers' money and using your subcommittee as an arm of the Democratic Na-
tional Committee.
Sincerely yours,
[s] Joe McCarthy.
and the letter carries the initials at the bottom.
The next exhibit is exhibit No. 11, also indicated as "Copy" in
brackets. It is a letter dated December 21, 1951. It is addressed to
Senator McCarthy, and signed by Guy M. Gillette, and reads as
follows :
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
My Dear Senator: Today I received your letter of December 19 quoting
former correspondence in wliich you had asked for some specific information
which you feel was not given you in my reply to your former request.
Not only as a member of tlie Rules Committee, but as a member of tlie United
States Senate, you were certainly entitled to any factual information relative
to the work of our Subcommittee of Rules and Administration or with reference
to the members of its staff. I shall be very glad to give you such information as
I have or go with you, if you so desire, to the I'ooms occupied by the sul>com-
mittee and aid you in securing any facts that are there available, relative to the
employees of the subcommittee or their work.
I am sure you will agree that this is preferable to an attempt to cover mat-
ters of this kind through an interchange of correspondence. Unfortunately,
our previous correspondence concerning these matters found its way into the pulj-
lic press and your letters to me were printed in full in the pul)li(' press even be-
fore I received them. As a former judge you will appreciate, I am sure, the im-
propriety of discussing matters pertaining to pending litigation in the public
press. The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, having referred
the Benton resolution to our subcommittee, has placed us in a quasijudicial posi-
tion relative to a matter of outstanding importance involving the expulsion from
the Senate of a sitting member.
Inquiry has disclosed that it would be impossible for me to call the subcom-
mittee together for further consideration of this resolution and its import before
Monday, the 7th of January, and I am calling a meeting for that date at 10 a. m.
in my office.
When the Benton resolution was first referred to the subcommittee it developed
that there was a difference of opinion among the members as to our responsibility
under the reference and the terms of the resolution. The subcommittee ordered
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 29
its staff to make study and report of the legal phases and precedents pertaining
to the questions I'aised by the resolution and also to report as to certain allega-
tions of fact contained in the resolution. We are awaiting these reports and,
on the date of the meeting, which I have called for January 7, it is expected
that the subcommittee will make a decision as to what further action, if any,
it will take on the resolution.
As I have told you before, if you care to appear before the subcommittee,
we should be glad to make the necessary arrangements as to time and place.
Your letter and this reply will be made available to the members of the sub-
committee by copy and you will be promptly advised as to what action the
subcommittee decided to take.
In the meantime, as I have stated above in this letter, I shall be glad to
confer with you personally as to matters concerning our staff and its work.
In closing, may I again assure you that as far as I am personally concerned,
neither the Democratic National Committee, nor any other person or group other
than an agency of the United States Senate has had or will have any influence
whatever as to my duties and actions as a member of the subcommittee and
I am just as confident that no other member of the subcommittee has been or
will be so influenced.
With warm personal greetings and holiday wishes, I am
Sincerely,
GtJY M. Gillette.
And the initials at tlie bottom "GINIG : cc."
Exhibit No. 12 is a letter from Senator McCarthy to Senator Gny M.
Gillette dated January 4, 1952 :
Senator Guy M. Gillbtfte.
Chairman. Subcommittee on Elections and Privileges,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
Dear Senator Gillette: Your letter of December 21 has just been called to
my attention. As you know this was in answer to my letter to you of December
19. in which I asked for certain information.
I can easily understand that you mieht have some difficulty answering some
of my questions without first consulting the other members of the subcommittee^ —
for example, the question as to the theory of the law under which investigators
are being hired and money being spent to investigate matters having nothing
whatsoever to do with elections. There is, however, one simple question which
you could easily answer and I am sure you will agree that I am entitled to the
answer. It is the simple question of whether or not you have ordered the
investigators to restrict their investigation to matters having to do with elec-
tions, or whether their investigations extend into fields having nothing what-
soever to do with either my election or the election of any other Senator.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Joe McCarthy.
McC : jh
The next letter is marked "Exhibit Xo. 12A," contains the word
"copy" at the top, the date January 10, 1952. It is addressed to
KSenator Joe McCarthy and is signed by Senator Guy M. Gillette :
oMy Dear Sexator : This is an af'kno\\ledgment of the receipt of your letter
of January 4 which has just been brought to my attention. Your letter makes
inquiry as to whether the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections "ordered
the investigators to restrict their investigations to matters having to do with
elections, or whether their investigations extend into fields having nothing
Avhatever to do with either my election or the election of any other Senator."
In reply, you will recall that the Senate Committee on Rules and Adminis-
tration received from the Senate the Benton resolution calling for a preliminary
investigation relative to ouster proceedings. The Rules Committee referred
the resolution to our subcommittee, as any other piece of legislation would be
referred to a subeonnnittee. The subcommittee met and directed its staff to
make a preliminary study both of the legal phases and precedents pertaining
to this type of action and also a preliminary Investigation of the factual matter
charged in the resolution. They were instructed to make these preliminary
studies and report to us at as early a time as possible. The report on the legal
questions has been received by the subcommittee and we advise that the report
on the factual charges will be available to us by the end of this week. The
30 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 801
subcommittee then would study the reports and determine what action, if any,
they wish to take in making their report to the Rules Committee on the resolution.
The above statement covers the question you asked as to what instructions
were given to the subcommittee staff relative to the Benton resolution.
Sincerely,
Guy M. Gillette.
GMG : CO
The next letter is marked "Exhibit 13," with the word "copy'^
bracketed, and is a letter dated March 21, 1952, addressed to the
Honorable Carl Hayden, United States Senate, Washington, D. C,
and is signed by Senator McCarthy.
It is as follows :
Deak Senator Hayden : Some days ago you handed me a letter from Senator
Gillette, chairman of the Senate Elections Subcommittee, to you as chairman
of the full committee. At that time you informed me that a majority of the
full committee had adopted the subcommittee's resolution requesting that I
bring to the floor of the Senate a motion to discharge the Elections Subcom-
mittee. You further stated that the purpose of this motion would be to test
the jurisdiction and integrity of the members of the subcommittee.
As I stated to you the other day, I feel it would be entirely improper to dis-
charge the Elections Subcommittee at this time for the following reasons:
The Elections Subcommittee unquestionably has the power and, when com-
plaint is made, the duty to investigate any improper conduct on the part of
McCarthy or any other Senator in a senatorial election.
The subcommittee has spent tens of thousands of dollars and nearly a year
making the most painstaking investigation of my part in the Maryland election,
as well as my campaigns in Wisconsin. The subcommittee's task is not finished
until it reports to the Senate the result of that investigation, namely, whether
they found such misconduct on the part of McCarthy in either his ow u campaigns
or in the Tydings campaign to warrant his expulsion from the Senate.
I note the subcommittee's request that the integrity of the subcommittee be
passed upon. As you know, the sole question of the integrity of the subcommittee
concerned its right to spend vast sums of money investigating the life of
McCarthy from birth to date without any authority to do so from the Senate.
However, the vote on that question cannot affect the McCarthy investigation,
in that tlie committee for a year has been looking into every possible phase of
McCarthy's life, including an investigation of those who contributed to my
unsuccessful 1944 campaign.
As you know, I wrote Senator Gillette, chairman of the subcommittee, that
I considered this a completely dishonest handling of taxpayers' money. I felt
that the Elections Subcommittee had no authority to go into matters other than
elections unless the Senate instructed it to do so. However, it is obvious that
insofar as McCarthy is concerned that is now a moot question, because the
staff has already painstakingly and diligently investigated every nook and
cranny of my life from birth to date. Every possible lead on r^IcCarthy was
investigated. Nothing that could be investigated was left uninvestigated. The
staff's scurrilous report, which consisted of cleverly twisted and distorted facts,
was then "leaked" to the leftwing elements of the press and blazoned across
the Nation in an attempt to further smear McCarthy.
A vote of confidence in the subcommittee would be a vote on whether or not
it had the right, without authority from the Senate, but merely on the request
of one Senator (in the case, Senator Benton) to make a thorough and complete
investigation of the entire life of another Senator. A vote to uphold the subcom-
mittee would mean that the Senate accepts and approves this precedent and
makes it binding on the Election Subcommittee in the future.
A vote against the subcommittee could not undo what the subcommittee has
done in regard to McCarthy. It would not force the subcommittee members to
repay into the Treasury the funds spent on this investigation of McCarthy.
A vote against the subcommittee would merely mean that the Senate disapproves
what has already been done insofar as McCarthy is concerned, and therefore,
disapproves an investigation of O'ther Senators like the one which was made
of McCarthy. While I felt the subcommittee exceeded its authority, now that
it has established a precedent in McCarthy's case, the same rule should apply to
■every other Senator. If the subcommittee brought up this question before the
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 31
investigation had been made, I would have voted to discharge it. Now that the
deed is done, however, the same rule should apply to the other 95 Senators.
For that reason, I would be forced to vigorously oppose a motion to discharge
the Elections Subcommittee at this time.
I hope the Senate agrees with me that it would be highly improper to discharge
the Gillette-Monroney subcommittee at this time, thereby, in effect, setting a
different rule for the subcommittee to follow in case an investigation is asked
of any of the other 95 Senators.
Sincerely yours,
Joe McCarthy.
At the bottom, initials, and "cc : To all Senators."
Mr. Chairman, may I turn over the responsibility of reading to my
able associate to my right, and let me rest my voice for a minute ?
The Chairman. Mr. De Furia will now read the exhibits, beginning
with exhibit No. 14.
Mr. De Furia. We will read into the record Senate Eesolution 300
of the 82d Congress, 2d session :
In the Senate of the United States,
April 8 {legislative day, April 2), 1952.
Mr. Hayden (for himself, Mr. Gillette, Mr. Monroney, Mr. Hennings, and Mr.
Hendrickson) submitted the following resolution, which was ordered to lie over
under the rule :
"Resolution
"Whereas Senate Resolution 187, to further investigate the participation of
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy in the Maryland 1950 senatorial campaign and
other acts, to determine whether expulsion proceedings should be instituted
against him, was introduced in the Senate by the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Benton) on August 6, 1951, and was referred by the Senate to the Com-
mittee on Rules and Administration ; and
"Whereas on August 8, 1951, said resolution was referred by the Committee
on Rules and Administration to its Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections ;
and
"Whereas in a series of communications addressed to the chairman of said
subcommittee during the period between December 6, 1951. and January 4,
1952, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. McCarthy) charged that the subcom-
mittee lacked jurisdiction to investigate such acts of the Senator from Wis-
consin (Mr. McCarthy) as were not connected with election campaigns and
attacked the honesty of the members of the subcommittee, charging that, in
their investigation of such other acts, the members were improperly motivated
and were 'guilty of stealing just as clearly as though the members engaged in
picking the pockets of the taxpayers' ; and
"Whereas on March 5, 1952, the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections
adopted the following motion as the most expeditious parliamentary method of
obtaining an affirmation by the Senate of its jurisdiction in this matter and a
vote on the honesty of its members :
" 'That the chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration request
Senator McCarthy, of Wisconsin, to raise the question of the jurisdiction of
the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections and of the integrity of the members
thereof in connection with its consideration of Senate Resolution 187 by making
a formal motion on the floor of the Senate to discharge the committee ; and that
Senator McCarthy be advised by the chairman of the Committee on Rules
and Administration that, if he does not take the requested action in a period
of time to be fixed by stipulation between Senator McCarthy and the chairman
of the Committee on Rules and Administration, the committee (acting through
the chairman of the standing committee or the chairman of the subcommittee)
will itself present such motion to discharge for the purpose of affirming the
jurisdiction of the subcommittee and the integrity of its members in its con-
sideration of the aforesaid resolution ;' and
"Whereas on March 6, 1952, the said motion was also adopted by the Com-
mittee on Rules and Administration and the chairman of said committee sub-
mitted to the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. McCarthy) a copy of the above-stated
motion ; and
32 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
"Whereas by letter dated March 21, 1952, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr.
McCarthy) in effect declined to take the action called for by the above-stated
motion, repeating his charge that the subcommittee has been guilty of 'a com-
pletely dishonest handling of taxpayers' money,' referring to a preliminary and
confidential report of its staff as 'scurrilous' and consisting of 'cleverly twisted
and distorted facts' :
Now, therefore, to determine the proper jurisdiction of the Committee on
Rules and Administration and to express the confidence of the Senate in its
committee in their consideration of Senate Kesolution 187, it being understood
that the following motion is made solely for this test and that the adoption
of the resolution is opjwsed by the members on whose behalf it is submitted,
be it
Resolved, That the Committee on Rules and Administration be, and it hereby
is, discharged from the further consideration of Senate Resolution 187.
The Chair:man. Mr. de Furia, will you state for tlie record, of -which
we will take judicial notice, as to what happened to this resolution?
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes, sir.
We ask that the conunittee take legislative notice of the fact that the
Senate voted upon this resolution on April 10, 1952; that the pro-
ceedings appear in the Congressional Eecord of that day, page 3954.
The votes were: Yeas, 0; nays, GO; not voting, 36, and the President
of the Senate declared that the resolution was rejected, sir.
The Chairman. You may proceed to the next exhibit.
Mr. DE Furia. Exhibit No. IT is a letter dated ]May 7, 1952, from
Sejiator Gillette to Senator McCarthy :
Hon. Joseph R. McCakthy,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
My Dear Senator: The Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections in execu-
tive session this morning voted to hold public hearings on Senate Resolution
187, which was introduced in the Senate by Senator William Benton, of Con-
necticut, on August 6, 1951, and was thereafter referred to this subcommittee
for action.
It was further decided that the hearings are to begin on Monday, IMay
12, and that the first charges to be heard will be Senator Benton's "Case No.
2," wherein it was alleged that you had improperly received a fee of $10,000
in 1948 from tlie Lustron Corp. for an article on housing which was included in
an advertising booklet published by that company..
The subcommittee has not yet determined the order of witnesses for this
first case but we expect to do so liy Friday after consultation with the staff.
In the meantime I do wish to extend to you the opportunity to appear at the
hearings for the purpose of presenting testimony relating to this charge. The
hearings in this case will probably continue for several days, and we shall make
whatever arrangements tor your appearance are most convenient for you.
Sincerely,
Guy M. Gillette, Chairman.
The next letter, Mr. Chairman, Exhibit No. 18, is a letter dated
May 8, 1952, from Senator McCarthy' to Senator Gillette and reads
as follows :
United States Senate,
Committee on Appropriations.
May S, 1952.
Senator Guy Gillette,
Chairman, Siihcommittee on Privileges and Elections,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
Dear Senator Gii-lette: This is to acknowledge receipt of your lettei" of
May 7, in which you state that your Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections
plans to hold public hearings on Benton's "Charge No. 2"' against me, namely,
that it was improper for me to sell the rights of my housing I)ook to the Lustron
Corp.
You invite me to testify.
On what point do you desire information?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 33
The following facts are all public information in regard to the sale of my
book :
I held a press conference in 1948 when the sale was completed and announced :
(1) The sale of the housing book;
(2) That Lustron was the buyer;
(3) That Lustron would lie the publisher ;
(4) That the book would be sold for 35 cents per copy ;
(5) That the contract provided that I would keep the book up to date for
5 years, revising it whenever required by any changes in legislation, lending
practices, or other matters affecting housing ;
(6) Tbat I had been working on the book for over a year and that every
line had been checked for accuracy by every Government agency concerned with
housing.
At that time Lustron had been loaned money by the RFC, but was apparently
flourishing and producing an excellent prefabricated house.
During the housing hearings which were held throughout the country, I
found that a vast number of young men were not even remotely aware of how
to take advantage of the many housing aids which we had provided for them
by law. I felt that writing a simple explanatory book so that every young man
who desired to buy or build a home could easily understand how to take advan-
tage of the aids which we had provided for him by law was even more impor-
tant than passing the proper laws. I proceeded to do this task.
Lustron offered a royalty of 10 cents per copy and promised the widest cir-
culation of any of those who were bidding on the book. The Congressional
Record of June 19, 1950, contains the correspondence which I had with a great
number of publishers whom I attempted to interest in putting out this book
at a low retail cost. This correspondence starts on page A-4764. The pub-
lishers' replies boiled down to the statement that they could not afford to pub-
lish such a specialized book at a low cost.
In 1950, after RFC had foreclosed on Lustron, Senator Fulbright's committee
made a thorough investigation of Lustron. Senator Fulbright, who by the
greatest stretch of the imagination could not be considered a friend of mine,
w^as unable to produce any evidence that McCarthy ever directly or indirectly
interceded with any Government agency in behalf of Lustron. The unquestioned
evidence before that committee was that "Senator McCarthy has never been
interested in Lustron, has never interceded for Lustron, has never done anything
to influence any particular thing for Lustron" — page 200, Senate Banking and
Currency Committee, June 26, 1950. The evidence .also shows — page 200 — that
Lustron received $46,000 for the sale of this book with an advertising pamphlet.
Apparently the purchase and sale of this book was Lustron's only profitable
venture.
I understand that even though your investigators have been very painstaking
in their attempts, they have been unable to find even a telephone call I made to
anyone in behalf of Lustron. If the administration knew of a single contact
which I ever made with RFC or any other Government agency in behalf of
Lustron, they would hardly be keeping it secret to protect McCarthy. I am
curious to know what new facts you expect to produce for the benefit of the public
at this public hearing.
Perhaps you are going to produce evidence to show that the day the contract
was signed, November 12, 1948, 10 days after the Republicans lost control of the
Senate and the House and were defeated in the Presidential race, Lustron bought
this book from me because of the tremendous influence which I have with the
Democrat administration. Or perhaps you hope to prove that the preparation
of the book and the contract to keep it up to date for 5 years was worth less than
10 cents a copy. If so, I wonder if you plan on proving that some of the speeches
which a sizable number of yoiu- Democrat friends make and magazine articles
and books which they have written for a fee are worth less than the fee paid.
The announcement that you are holding public hearings after nearly a year of
investigation carries the implication that there is some improper conduct in
connection with the sale of the publication to Lustron. I would like to know
what you claim that iniproper conduct to be. I assume you do not claim it is
improper for a Senator to write a book or magazine article, because if so, you
will have to call many of your Democrat friends before you.
If the "improper conduct" is the sale by a Senator of a book or a magazine
article to an apparently flourishing corporation which has an RFC loan, no
hearing of any kind would be necessary, because there can be no dispute about
the fact that the book was sold to Lustron and that Lustron did have an RFC
34 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
loan. Therefore, I assume that I am not unreasonable in asking you what new
facts or proof you expect to produce at the public hearings. Certainly, you
would not be using the hearing merely as a sounding board for more of the
Benton type of smear attacks.
In this connection I call your attention to the fact that Benton, who has
made the complaint, has been selling his publication and films directly to the
State Department. Do you plan upon investigating this matter? Or, like
Benton, do you consider it proper for a Senator to take money directly from a
Government agency but improper to deal with a private firm which has a loan
from a Government agency ?
As chairman of the committee investigating Benton's charges, I am sure you
are aware that Political Affairs, the official Communist Party publication which
sets forth the current tasks and problems of the party, has ordered Commu-
nist Party members to "support the Benton resolution to oust McCarthy from
the Senate" (Political Affairs, October 1951, p. 29). This publication has
been labeled by the House Committee on Un-American Activities as the tlieo-
retical organ of the Communist Party.
Shortly before Benton appointed himself to lead the fight to smear and dis-
credit McCarthy, the Communist Party through its then secretary, Gus Hall
(who has since been jailed) officially proclaimed that all Communist Party mem-
bers must "yield second place to none in the fight to rid our country of the fascist
poison of McCarthyism" (Daily Worker, May 4, 1950).
The Communist Party has officially proclaimed and published in the Daily
Worker that one of its major tasks is to discredit and smear McCarthy out of
public office.
The Communist Party of Washington and Maryland put out a directive to all
members of the Communist Party under the heading, "Unity Can Defeat Mc-
Carthyism." This directive was signed by Philip Frankfeld (who has since
been jailed). It contains the following order to Communist Party members:
"Remember the fact that the main enemy is McCarthyism and all of its work-
ings and direct your main fight against it."
All of the above objectives of the Communist Party have been adopted by
William Benton as his objectives also. You must agree that the aims and ob-
jectives of both the Communist Party and Benton are identical insofar as Mc-
Carthy is concerned. The only question is whether it is knowingly or through
stupidity that Benton is trying to perform what the Communist Party has of-
ficially and repeatedly proclaimed its No. 1 task.
Lenin once said, "We can and must write in a language which sows among
the masses hate, revulsion, scorn, and tiie like toward those who disagree with
us."
I am sure that you would never knowingly allow your committee to serve
the Communist cause. However, the damage ddne is the same regardless of
whether it is knowingly and deliberately done. There can be no question in
your mind or in anyone's mind that this year-long investigation by your sub-
committee would never have l)een commenced if I had not been exposing Com-
munists in Government. Already 10 of those whom I have exposed have either
been convicted or i-emoved under the loyalty program. This is only a small
indication of how badly the Communist Party is being hurt. The Commu-
nists will have scored a great victory if they can convince every other Sen-
ator or Congressman that if ho attempts to exiwse undercover Communists, he
will be subjected to the same type of intense smear, even to the extent of using
a Senate committee for the purpose. They will have frightened away from this
fight a vast number of legislators who fear the political effect of being inundated
by the Communist Party line sewage.
If you have evidence of wrongdoing on McCarthy's part, which would justify
removal from the Senate or a vote of censure by the Senate, certainly you have
the obligation to produce it. However, as you well know, every member of your
committee and staff privately admits that no such evidence is in existence. It is
an evil and dishonest thing for the subcommittee to allow itself to be used for
an evil purpose. Certainly the fact that the Democrat Party may temporarily
benefit thereby is insufficient justification. Remember the Communist Party will
benefit infinitely more.
Sincerely yours,
Joe McCarthy.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 35
Exhibit No. 19 is a letter from Senator McCarthy to Senator Gil-
lette, dated May 8, 1952, and I will read it, Mr. Chairman :
Senator Gut M. Gillette,
Chairman, Suhcommittee on Privileges and Elections,
United States Senate, Washington, D. G.
Dear Senator Gillette : I understand that your subcommittee has decided to
commence holding open hearings Monday on Benton's resolution to expel Mc-
Carthy from the Senate because of his fight to expose Communists in the Demo-
crat administration. I further understand that you have taken no action whatso-
ever on the resolution to investigate Benton.
Before I urged the Senate to vote to continue the life of your subcommittee
vre received your unqualified promise to proceed to investigate the Benton case
just as expeditiously as the attempted expulsion of McCarthy. I now understand
that you have not even so much as suggested that the resolution asking for an
investigation of Benton's activities be referred to your subcommittee; that noth-
ing whatsoever has been done in the Benton case, although weeks have passed
since that resolution was introduced, and you made that promise on the Senate
floor. I understand you excuse your actions to the press by stating that the Rules
Committee had not referred the Benton case to you.
You and Benton are members of the Rules Committee, and, as you well know,
the Democrats have the majority of the votes on that committee and can stall
the Benton case indefinitely without referring it to your subcommittee. I am sure
you will agree that this is a most dishonest evasion of a promise made to and
relied upon by the Senate.
In view of the amount of time and money spent investigating McCarthy, this
stalling in the Benton case cannot help but more firmly convince the American
people that your subcommittee is being dishonestly used as an arm of the Demo-
crat National Committee.
Sincerely yours,
Joe McCartht.
The Chairman. At this point, the committee will recess until — ■ —
Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. Just a moment. Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. In just a minute, I desire to make a very brief
statement.
The Chairman. Order, please. Photographers, please keep your
cameras quiet and do not use them. Sit down and be quiet until we
recess.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, on yesterday evening Senator
McCarthy and his attorney, Mr. Williams, called the attention of this
committee to a published article in the Denver Post on March 12,
1954, in which an interview by telephone with me was stated or was
used, and I desire to make a brief statement with respect to that
publication.
The Chairman. You may proceed. Senator.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I did not say on March 12, or at
any other time, that I personally loathed Senator Joseph McCarthy.
In response to a telephone call from Denver, I agreed that some of my
Democratic colleagues did not like Senator McCarthy. My March 12
statement, as ])ublished, did not say that I personally loathed Senator
McCarthy. The Flanders speech on the Senate floor, which was the
forerunner of my March 12 statement, pertained to the question
whether or not Senator McCarthy be removed from the chairmanship
of a Senate committee.
My position then and now is that that matter should be decided by
the majority party in charge of the organization of the Senate and
that it was not the business of the Senate Democratic Party at all.
I have full faith in my ability to weigh the charges which have been
36 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
made against Senator McCarthy, together with ^Yhatever evidence
may be presented without prejudice.
The Chairman. Thank yon, Senator.
Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman, may I
The Chairman. Senator Stennis.
Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I think the
ruling of the Chair was correct, a while ago, with reference to the
oral argument by Mr. Williams.
I think the request of the Chair that he file a written brief would
be very helpful in this case to the members of the committee and to
the Members of the Senate.
Ordinarily, in a court of law, the declaration or the bill of com-
plaint sets out the facts, and we have the facts before us ; but in this
case, there is no formal bill of complaint, no formal declaration, so I
think it is necessary to first get the facts. It is said that out of the
facts the sound law arises.
Now, after all these facts are in and the brief submitted — and I have
made a note here of the three cases cited from the Supreme Court — it
might be that some might want to hear oral argument on those cases.
I would like to reserve that point now, because I want to go into
it in the brief.
But, first, I think the Chair is eminently correct. We must develop
these facts.
Mr. AViLLiAMS. I might say to the Chair that overnight I shall pre-
pare a brief, and I shall submit it in form so that each member of the
committee shall have a copy of it, in an effort to comport with the
Chair's ruling.
I shall also hope that the Chair, in its wisdom, will see fit, after
consultation with the other members, to permit me a specified amount
of time to make such additional points as I wish.
I would like also to say at this time, if I may, sir, that the record
might be straight in open hearings, I think it should be stated at this
time that at no time has either Senator McCarthy or myself challenged
Senator Johnson's qualifications to sit on this committee.
What we did was to call to the attention of the committee a matter
that was called to our attention exactly 5 minutes before we brought
it to the committee. I felt that as counsel to Senator McCarthy, and
as counsel serving before this committee, I should be derelict in my
duty if I did not bring to the attention of the committee something
upon which the committee might want to take action.
Now, I do not know whether the Chair desires to have read into the
record what I called to the attention of the committee or not. It seems
to me it would be appropriate to have it there so that Senator John-
son's remarks might be viewed in proper context.
What I did call
The Chairman. I do not think it is necessary to this hearing. No-
body has challenged Senator Johnson. He was appointed by the
Senate, and this committee has no authority to remove him or even to
accept a resignation of his from the committee.
Since that is the record, why is it necessary to clutter it up with a
lot of extraneous matter? I rule that we will not follow that sug-
gestion.
Mr. Williams. The only thing we had hoped for, Mr. Chairman,
was this : At least — maybe I am in error — but I was led to believe as I
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 37
left the executive session last nigiit — I do not know whether Senator
McCarthy shares my understanding or not — but I was led to believe
that Senator Johnson was going to call the editor who bylined this
story, and either confirm or deny the reported contents thereof.
The Chairman. If it is immaterial to this hearing, what differ-
ence does it make whether he called him or did not call him ? I do not
think it makes any difference whatsoever. We are not trying Senator
Johnson ; no accusations have been made against him, no challenge has
been macle as to him.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I have desisted from making
any comments, so far, and I would like to ask a question, if I may.
The Chairman. Just a moment, Senator. Let us get this clear : I
think the fair interpretation of the rule is that when your counsel
speaks on a matter, that precludes you from addressing the Chair of
the committee on the same matter. If you want to take it over your-
self, why then, you start it, and then we"^ will let you finish it. But we
are not going to permit both of you to argue this matter.
Senator McCarthy. Just a minute, Mr. Chairman, just 1 minute.
Mr. Williams. Senator ]\IcCarthy is really extending a thought
that I had, and that I had suggested to the Chair.
I had come away from the hearing yesterday, feeling that we were
going to get a statement from Senator Johnson either affirming or
denying the story which is reported in the March 12 Denver Post.
Now, I'was not idly curious on that subject. Senator. I felt that I
needed that information in order to intelligently advise Senator Mc-
Carthy as to what position he should take witli respect to this matter.
The Chairman. I would say to you, Mr. Williams, that Senator
Johnson, if he was able to make that telephone communication, will tell
you privately what was the result of the conversation. But I cannot
see why it has anything to do with this matter. There is no challenge.
We have not any authority over Senator Johnson.
Mr. Willia:\ls. I do not have information enough at this time, Mr.
Chairman, to make a challenge. I do not know whether I should
advise Senator McCarthy to make a challenge or not, because I do not
know yet whether or not the reported statements in the Denver Post
are true or are untrue, and I have relied upon the representations made
in executive session as to the source for my information on that subject
today.
The Chairman. I would say that the Chair has already ruled on
this matter that it has nothing to do with the committee. We have no
authority to change the personnel. We could not — it is not maerial
to our investigation.
The personnel have been selected ; members of this committee have
been selected by the Senate itself, and this committee certainly has no
authority under the order set up under the Resolution 301 to remove
any of its members, to consider any challenge to its membership.
Mr. Williams. So that I miglit understand the ruling of the Chair,
it is that we are not entitled to the information as to the truth or
falsity of the statements of March 12 ?
The Chairman. I sav you are entitled to it if vou wish to get it from
Senator Johnson, but I say that it is not material to this hearing and
for that reason I am not going to permit, or should not permit colloquy
to go on back and forth.
38 HEARENGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator Johnson has made his statement, and that is it, and you
have made your statement.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman — —
The Chairman. Senator Case.
Senator Case. It occurs to me that all of this discussion is immaterial
to the purposes of the inquiry, for the record of this inquiry.
Senator Carlson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be in a position
The Chairman. Senator Carlson.
Senator Carlson. I confirm Senator Case's remarks, so far as this
particular record is concerned.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one ques-
tion. Are we entitled to know whether or not the quotations of
March 12 are correct or incorrect?
I would like to know whether the Denver Post
The Chairman. You may get it, Senator, and I am going to rule
on this, and I have already ruled, you may get that some other place.
But this committee has no jurisdiction over those matters, whatso-
ever. This committee was appointed by the Senate ; the only condi-
tion laid down was that there would be 3 Democrats and 3 Republi-
cans, and here we are, 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats, and this com-
mittee is not going to take on the job of the Senate and going to decide
whether this committee is a proper committee or not. This com-
mittee is
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. Just a moment. Senator. You have filed no chal-
lenge; and, in the first place, I believe it is improper for you to do
so, because we have not unj jurisdiction.
Senator ]\IcCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I should be entitled to know
whether or not — —
The Chairman, The Senator is out of order.
Senator McCarthy. Can't I get Mr. Johnson to tell me
The Chairman. The Senator is out of order.
Senator McCarthy. Whether it is true or" false ?
The Chairman. The Senator is out of order. You can go to the
Senator and question and find out. That is not for this committee
to consider. We are not going to be interrupted by these diversions
and sidelines. We are going straight down the line.
The committee will be in recess.
I had announced previously that the committee would recess until
10 o'clock tomorrow morning, and that is the order.
(Whereupon, at 12 : 25 p. m., the committee adjourned to reconvene
Wednesday, September 1, 1954, at 10 a. m.)
HEAEINGS ON SENATE EESOLUTION 301
wednesday, september 1, 1954
United States Senate,
Select Committee To Study Censure Charges
Pursuant to Senate Order on Senate Resolution 301,
Washington^ D. C.
The select committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 : 10 a. m., in the
caucus room, Senate Office Building, Senator Arthur V. Watkins
(chajrman) presiding.
Present: Senators Watkins (presiding), Johnson of Colorado (vice
chairman), Stennis, Carlson, Case, and Ervin.
Also present: Senator McCarthy; E. Wallace Chadwick, counsel
to the committee ; Guy G. cle Furia, assistant counsel to the committee ;
John M. Jex, clerk of the committee ; John W. Wellman, staff mem-
ber; Frank Ginsburg and Ray R. McGuire, members of Senator
Watkins' staff on loan to the committee; and Edward Bennett Wil-
liams, counsel to Senator McCarthy, with his associates, Agnes A.
Neill and Brent Bozell.
The Chairman. It is with extreme regret and deep sorrow that we
received today the news of the death of Senator Maybank, the dis-
tinguished Senator from South Carolina. He was greatly beloved in
the Senate. He had been there for a long time, had splendid seniority.
We are going to miss him.
His State lost a great man, and the Nation a fine public servant.
By reason of the fact that this hearing had already been set up it
would be very inconvenient to postpone it, and the committee felt
that it should proceed with the hearings as scheduled. However, at
least two members of the committee will be appointed to attend the
funeral when the date is announced.
As a mark of respect the committee will all stand, and we would
like you to stand with us for one ^moment in silence, as a mark of
respect to Senator Maj^bank.
(The committee and the audience stood in silence.)
The Chairman. You may be seated.
I would like to ask at the outset of this hearing today, are the micro-
phones and the amplification system working sufficiently well so that
you can hear in the rear of the room ?
(The response w\as ''Yes.")
The Chairman. The officers at the end of the room indicated that
they are working. We did not know until the latter part of the hear-
ing yesterday that they were not working. We regret that very much.
At the close of yesterday's session a question had been raised, which
the Chair ruled on, and, in amplification of what was said then, I think,
for the benefit of the people of the country, I should at least expand
the statement and the ruling that I made.
39
40 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The question was raised with respect to the qualifications of Senator
Johnson of Colorado to sit as a member of this committee. The ruling
was that he was appointed by the Senate itself; this committee had
no power to remove him ; and there had been no challenge filed against
him ; and even if there had been, this committee was powerless to act
in the matter.
In addition to that, I would like to call attention to the fact that
the connnittee has heard from Senator Johnson — his statement that
was made yesterday in open session. The committee is satisfied that
Senator Johnson can do exactly what he said he could do, that is,
to try this matter fairly and consider the evidence that is brought
before it.
The Constitution of this country provided for a House and a Senate,
our supreme legislative bodies.
In doing that the framers of the Constitution said this in section 5
of article 1 :
Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifieations of
its own Members and a majority of each sliall constitute a quorum to do busi-
ness, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day.
Some parts of the section are not apropos of what I am going to
say, so I will not read them.
The following paragraph states :
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its INIembers
for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
The foregoing language has been construed to give to each House
of Congress the power to discipline its own Members and to determine
the rules of its proceedings. It has in the past rejected Members who
have come with credentials from a State and have done so for various
reasons which seemed to be sufficient to the Senate.
It has, as I recall, expelled Members.
It has also passed resolutions of censure.
It is the only body that can discipline a IMember for matters that
occur in the Senate, or of his activities, and can take notice of what a
Senator is doing. Courts cannot do it — no one else can do it but the
Senate.
The Senate has to act as a body in the final stages of any proceed-
ing or series of proceedings which have to do with the discipline or
the punishment of any of its Members for misconduct.
No matter what position a Senator may have taken with respect to
any of these matters of expulsion, rejection or discipline, he is en-
titled to vote on that matter. No one can disqualify him. Even if all
the Senators had taken a strong position, saying with reference to
Senator X — let us make it impersonal^ — ^if all of them said that Sena-
tor X was a disgrace to the Senate, that he had done things which were
im])roper, and he ought to be disciplined. Senator X coidd not success-
fully challenge any one of those Senators from sitting and acting on
his case. If he could, if he could disqualify him for that reason, then
there would be no action by the Senate, because all of them except
the Senator himself would be disqualified.
Suppose the Senate was divided evenly on a matter involving Sena-
tor X. Then those who had taken a strong position for Senator X,
if we are goiug to invoke a rule of complete impartiality and com-
plete neutrality, all of those Avho were strongly for him would be
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 41
disqualified, and all of those who had spoken against him would be
disqualified, and again the Senate would be impotent, completely
powerless to do the thing the Constitution says that it should do.
Now, a committee is only an arm, an agency of the parent body,
the Senate. None of the six Senators sitting here on this committee
can make any final judgment in the proceedings of this committee
on the matter now before it.
I pointed out, I hoped in a clear way yesterday, that this com-
mittee had taken a position that, in accordance with the order which
was issued that it was to take such testimony as it deems advisable,
that it had concluded that that meant that it was to receive, ferret
out, and search for all evidence that has anything to do with or is
relevant and material to the charges now before this committee and the
Senate, not to eject any parties aside on the matter, but to ferret it all
out.
It is a fact-finding body. In order to accomplish that, we have to do
a lot of preliminary work. We have staff people, investigators. They
go out and search for evidence, because if they did not, the Senate
would have to do it somewhere along the line, and that is the only way
the Senate can act.
Ninety-six Senators could not sit in a body and do that, as a prac-
tical matter, not within the time limit in the resolution, I am sure.
So* they have delegated this committee to take this testimony, to get
it, and it is our purpose, as was announced, to get the testimony
whether it favors Senator McCarthy or whether it is against him or
whether it is just in between, as long as it is relevant and material.
Now, that being the situation, and particularly with respect to the
fact that we cannot make any final judgment, I cannot see how any
legal contention of any shape or form can be made against any member
of this committee that could be maintained as a matter of law or as a
matter of fact.
Men in the profession of law are trained to take an objective point of
view. They sympathize with the man they defend in court, who may
be charged with some vicious crime, and yet a law^yer would go all out,
although he may have horrors of the crime, and he will do his level
best to see that that man has his rights.
You have three members of this committee wdio are lawyers and
who have served as judges.
Now, that is our purpose. And the other members of this com-
mittee are all men of experience. In fact, I did not know until some
time back that some of the others were not lawyers. They have had
enough experience here to know how these matters are handled.
The public at large, many of them, at least, do not seem to under-
stand that we do not render any final decision. We do not find the
accused innocent or guilty. We get the facts and try to get them all ;
we get the arguments on the law and try to get them all, and have them
briefed for us, and then we report to the Senate of the United States,
which is the final court, and I submit that any man who cannot be
disqualified from sitting on that court certainly cannot be disqualified
from sitting on the committee that merely searches for the evidence.
I want to make that clear. I do not know if any member of the
committee has any desire to make comment on it. I shall be glad to
hear from them if they do.
Apparently, no comment is to be made.
42 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
I think I might say without the denial or any fear of contradiction
that the committee is unanimous on this matter.
In addition to what I have said — I should say this— the Senate
created the committee, appointed us, and we can find nowhere in our
appointment, our source of authority, the directive of what w^e are to
do, any place where we should pass on the qualifications of the com-
mittee. That was done by a higher body, and it would be presump-
tuous on our part to attempt to do any such thing.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Ervin.
Senator Ervin. You have invited a comment. I would like to say
that I approve 100 percent what you have said. It is apparent that
if the right of a Senator to discharge a senatorial function can be
successfully challenged, then the ability of the Senate to function
under the Constitution of the United States would be paralyzed in
many cases.
The Chairman. Then the committee has made the ruling. We
think the matter is not pertinent or relevant to this case, so we will
go ahead with the testimony and call upon our counsel to read the
minutes.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Williams.
Mr. W^illiams. So that our legal position in this matter might be
preserved, overnight I have prepared a memorandum stating our
position I think simply and clearly, and I should like to ask the
Chair that this memorandum be incorporated in the record of these
proceedings so that it will be there present for the Senate to con-
sider at the appropriate time.
The Chairman. Do you want the entire letter just as you wrote it
put in the record ?
Mr. Williams. I am interested in having the memorandum in the
record, sir.
The Chairman. Personally, I have no objection to that. I think
the whole matter has been immaterial and irrelevant to these pro-
ceedings. I think we should proceed to carry out the directive given
us by the Senate.
At this moment I think, since this involves the whole committee
and one member of the committee specifically, that I shall reserve
the ruling until a later moment, until I can confer with my colleagues.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it perfectly clear,
sir, that I am not seeking opportunity to argue this matter orally.
All I want is to have our position preserved in the record so that
these proceedings will completely be recorded therein. I just want
our position preserved in the record by an inclusion of this memo-
randum.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman.
The Cil'lirman. Senator Case.
Senator Case. I had an opportunity to read the statement very
briefly just before coming to the meeting. It seems to me that the
position of the counsel might be preserved without necessarily putting
that statement in the record.
The statement as I read it makes certain statements of fact which
may or may not be provable. I don't know; they may be, but it
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 43
seems to me before we agree to insert the statement in the record,
that it should be examined and studied with that thought in mind.
The position of counsel that they wish to preserve the right is
already spoken for the record, and I see no objection to that, but it
seems to me that the statement which incorporates allegations that,
if true, should perhaps be submitted with proof or under oath or
it ought not to be put in until we have a chance to study it.
The CiiAiRMAX. I think that the whole matter should be studied,
because the Chair has already ruled against the offer to place in the
record the newspaper clipping referred to.
As I remember, this memorandum restates it, and I haven't any
reason for, at the moment, changing my ruling on the clipping that
was offered. We will proceed with the hearing.
Mr. Williams. Do I understand the Chair has reserved ruling on
that point?
The Chairman. That was the statement I made,
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, resuming the presentation of docu-
mentary evidence in tlie form of the exhibits read from the record
of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections to the Committee
on Rules and Administration under Senate Resolution 187 and Senate
Resolution 304, I refer to the exhibit No. 20, which contains the word
"copy" in parentheses, which is dated May 10, 1952, which is a letter
from Senator Gillette to Senator McCarthy, which I now read:
My Dear Senator McCarthy : I acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 8
which was written in response to a letter addressed to you by me as chairman
of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections under date of May 7. Your
reply of the 8th states factual matter in connection with the charges made by
Senator Benton in his resolution and which have been listed as "charge No. 2."
You will note from my letter of the 7th that I stated in the concluding para-
graph "I shall extend to you the opportunity to appear at the hearings for the
purpose of presenting testimony relating to this charge. The hearing in this
case will probably continue for several days and we shall make whatever arrange-
ments for your appearance are most convenient for you."
The subcommittee, in determining its further action relative to the Benton
resolution, decided to take up the charges one by one and, if additional evidence
was desired in addition to the staff report that was before us, that the sub-
committee would undertake to develop further testimony where it seemed
desirable to do so. At their meeting on May 7 the subcommittee concluded that
they wished to take some additional testimony with reference to charge No. 2
and fixed next Monday, May 12, as the date for the hearing, at which witnesses
under them could be heard.
It seemed the courteous thing to do to invite you to attend so you could have
full opportunity to present additional evid^ence or, at a later period, to present
any evidence you might wish to make available to us in refutation or explana-
tion of any evidence which you adduced at the hearing. That was the purpose
of my letter to you and you were assured that the opportunity will continue to
be yours to present such matter as you wish to present to us in connection with
this hearing and to attend, if you desire to do so.
I assume also that you would have no objection to having put in the record
of the hearings your letter of the 8th. Unless I receive the request from you
for me not to do so when the hearings are opened next Monday, I shall put in
the record my letter of the 7th addressed to you and your reply of the 8th
addressed to me.
With personal greetings, I am
Sincerely,
Guy M. Gillette.
And initials.
The next is exhibit 21, which is a letter dated May 11, 1952, signed
by Senator McCarthy, and addressed to Senator Guy Gillette, Senator
A. S. Monroney, and Senator Thomas Hennings.
62461—54 4
44 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Gentlemen : I havf learned with regret that your public hearings are to open
tomorrow without the presence of your star witness. You have my deepest
sympathy.
Some doubting Thomases might question the importance of this witness, ex-
cept that after nearly a year of investigating, you and your staff decided that
the public hearings must open with his intelligently presented, clear-cut expose
of the dangers of McCarthyism. The Nation owes you a debt of gratitude for
so carefully and honestly developing this witness who could have advised the
Senate and the voters of Wisconsin to get rid of McCarthy. If only you had
set the hearings 10 days earlier before the judge committed your star witness
to an institution for the criminally insane, you would not have been deprived
of this important link in the chain of evidence against McCarthy.
Some shallow thinkers may say that you gentlemen are dishonest to have
planned to use your committee as a soiuiding board to headline the statements
of a Wiitness after your staff had reported he was mentally unbalanced. I beg
you not to let this distract you from the honest, gentlemanly job you are doing.
Those critics fail to realize that everything is ethical and honest if it is done
to expose the awfulness of McCarthyism. After all, had not your staff reported
that while this witness was mentally deranged, his mental condition would help
to make him an excellent witness for you.
Certainly, you cannot be blamed for not knowing that some unthinking judge
woiild do the country the great disservice of commiting him to a home for the
insane before the committee had a chance to publicize and place its stamp of
approval on his statments about McCarthy. Certainly, you cannot be blamed
for being unable to distinguish between his testimony and the testimony of
the other witness, Benton, who asked for and was given the right to appear
before your committee and publicly "expose" McCarthy.
The Communist Party, which is also doing an excellent job of exposing the
evils of ^McCarthyism, has repeatedly proclaimed that no stone be left unturned
in the effort to remove McCarthy from public life. As Lenin said, "resort to
lies, trickery, deceit, and dishonesty of any type necessary," in order to destroy
those who stand in the way of the Communist movement.
I ask you gentlemen not to be disturbed by those who point out that your
committee is trying to do what the Communist Party has ofBcially proclaimed
as its No. 1 task. You ju.st keep right on in the same honest, painstaking way
of developing the truth. The thinking people of this Nation will not be deceived
by those who claim that what you are doing is dishonest. After all, you must
serve the interests of the Democrat Party — there is always the chance that
the country may be able to survive. What better way could you find to spend
the taxpayers' money? After all, isn't McCarthy doing the terribly unpatriotic
and unethical thing of proving the extent to which the Democrat administration
is Communist ridden? Unless he can be discredited, the Democrat Party may be
removed from power.
Again may I offer my condolences upon your failure to have your star witness
present as planned to open the testimony. Do you not think the judge who
committed him should be investigated?
Sincerely yours,
Joe McCarthy.
Tlie next exhibit is exliibit No. 38 from that report, contaiiiiiio; the
word "copy" in brackets at the liead. It is dated November T, 1952,
and it is addressed to the Honorable Joseph R. McCarthy, United
States Senate, Washington, D. C :
Dear Senator McCarthy : In connection with the consideration by the Sub-
committee on Privileges and Elections of Senate Resolution No. 187, introduced
by Senator Benton on August 6, 1951, as well as the ensuing investigation, I
have been instructed by the subcommittee to invite you to appear before said
subcommittee in executive session. Insofar as possible, we would like to respect
your wishes as to the date on which you will appear. However, the sul)committee
plans to be available, for this purpose, during the week beginning November 17,
1952.
It will be appreciated if you will advise me at as early a date as possible of
the day you will appear, in order that the subcommittee may arrange its plans
accordingly.
Very truly yours,
Paul J. Cotter, Chief Counsel.
PJC : miv.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 45
The next exhibit is exhibit No. 40, a photostat. It is a letter from
Ray Kiermas, administrative assistant to Senator McCarthy. It is
addressed to Mr. Panl Cotter, chief counsel. Subcommittee on Privi-
leges and Elections, United States Senate, Washington, D. C, and
reads as follows :
Dear Mr. Cotter : Inasmuch as Senator McCarthy is not now in Washing-
ton, I am taking the liberty of acknowledging receipt of your letter of
November 7.
I have just talked to the Senator over the telephone and he does not know just
when he will return to Washington. It presently appears that he will not be
available to appear before your committee during the time you mention. How-
ever, he did state that if you will let him know just what information you desire,
he will be glad to try to be of help to you.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Ray Kiermas,
Adniinist7-ative Assistant to Senator McCarthy.
RK/dl.
The letter was dated November 10, 1952.
The next exhibit is exhibit No. 41, a letter dated November 21, 1952,
to the Honorable Joseph R. McCarthy, a letter from Tomas Hennings,
Avith quotations from several letters. It is difficult to quickly pick up
the conclusion of it. The letter is as follows :
Dear Senator McCarthy: As you will recall, on September 25, 1951, May 7,
1952, and May 10, 1952, this subcommittee invited you to appear before it to give
testimony relating to the investigation pursuant to Senate Resolution 187.
Under date of November 7, 1952, the following communication was addressed
to you :
"Dear Senator McCarthy: In connection with the consideration by the Sub-
committee on Privileges and Elections of Senate Resolution No. 187, introduced
by Senator Benton on August 6, 1951, as well as the ensuing investigation, I
have been instructed by the subcommittee to invite you to appear before .said
subcommittee in executive session. Insofar as possible, we would like to respect
your wishes as to the date on which you will appear. However, the subcommittee
plans to be available, for this purpose, during the week beginning November 17,
1952.
"It will be appreciated if you will advise me at as early a date as possible of
the day you will appear, in order that the subcommittee may arrange its plans
accordingly.
"Very truly yours,
"Paul J. Cotter, Chief Counsel."
On November 14, 1952, the subcommittee received the following communica-
tion, dated November 10, 1952 :
"Dear Mr. Cotter : Inasmuch as Senator McCarthy is not now in Washington,
I am taking the liberty of acknowledging receipt of your letter of November 7.
"I have just talked to the Senator over the telephone and he does not know
just when he will return to Washington. It presently appears that he will not
be available to appear before your committee during the time you mention.
However, he did state that if you will let him know just what information you
desire, he will be glad to try to be of help to you.
"Sincerely yours,
"Ray Kiermas,
"Administrative Assistant to Senator McCarthy."
The subcommittee is grateful for your offer of assistance, and we want to
afford you with every opportunity to offer your explanations with reference to
the issues involved. Therefore, although the subcommittee did make itself
available during the past week in order to afford you an opportunity to be heard,
we shall be at your disposal commencing Saturday, November 22 through, but not
later than, Tuesday, November 25, 1952.
This subcommittee has but one object, and that is to reach an impartial and
proper conclusion based upon the facts. Your appearance, in person, before the
subcommittee will not only give you the opportunity to testify as to any issues
of fact which may be in controversy, but will be of the greatest assistance to the
46 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
subcommittee in its effort to arrive at a proper determination and to embody in
its report an accurate representation of tlie facts.
Pursuant to your request, as transmitted to us through Mr. Kiermas, we are
advising you that the subcommittee desires to make inquiry vpith respect to the
following matters:
(1) Whether any funds collected or received by you and by others on your
behalf to conduct certain of your activities, including those relating to com-
munism, were ever diverted and used for other purposes inuring to your personal
advantage.
(2) Whether you, at any time, used your official position as a United States
Senator and as a member of the Banking and Currency Committee, the Joint
Housing Committee, and the Senate Investigations Committee to obtain a $10,000
fee from the Lustron Corp., which company was then almost entirely subsidized
by agencies under the jurisdiction of the very committees of which you were
a member.
(3) Whether your activities on behalf of certain interest groups, such as
housing, sugar, and China, were motivated by self-interest.
(4) Whether your activities with respect to your senatorial campaigns, par-
ticularly with respect to the reporting of your financing and your activities
relating to the financial transactions with and subsequent employment of Ray
Kiermas, involved violations of the Federal and State Corrupt Practices Acts.
(5) Whether loan or other transactions which you had with the Appleton
State Bank, of Appleton, Wis., involved violations of tax and banking laws.
(6) Whether you used close associates and members of youi^ family to secrete
receipts, income, commodity and stock speculation, and other financial trans-
actions for ulterior motives.
We again assure you of our desire to give you the opportunity to testify, in
executive session of the subcommittee, as to the foregoing matters. The S2d
Congress expires in the immediate future and the subcommittee must necessarily
proceed with dispatch in making its I'eport to this Congress. To that end, we
respectfully urge you to arrange to come before us on or before November 25,
and thus enable us to do our conscientious best in the interests of the Senate and
our obligation to complete our work. We would thank you to advise us imme-
diately, so that we may plan accordingly.
This letter is being transmitted at the direction and with the full concurrence
of the membership of this subcommittee.
Sincerely yours,
Thomas C. Hennings, Jr., Chairman.
with initials.
The date of the letter which I have just read is November 21, 1952.
I turn aside at this point from the sequence of the exhibits quoted
from tlie H-H-H report — —
The Chairman. And when you say "H-H-H report," what are you
referring to, Mr. Chadwick ?
]Mr. Chadwick. I refer to the report heretofore mentioned, the re-
port of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections to the Commit-
tee on Rules and Administration in the investigation pursuant to
Senate Resolution 187 and Senate Resolution 304.
The Chairman. And which Congress ?
Mr. Chad-\vick. The 82d Congress, I think.
Tlie Chairman. And what does tlie "H-H-H" stand for?
Mr. Chadwick. The initials of the three members of the subcom-
mittee who signed the report.
The Chairman. Please name them.
Mr. Chadwick. Hennings, Hayden, and Hendrickson.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. Chadwick. I have in my hand an original telegram addressed
to Senator Joseph McCarthy which was produced at my request this
morning by his attorneys and delivered pursuant to an informal call,
and I understand — Mr. Williams is listening — that he is willing to
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 47
enter into a stipulation that this telegram shall be read into evidence
at this time.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Will you speak louder, Mr, Williams, for the
record. .
Mr. Williams. My microphone is dead, Mr. Chairman. That is
why you can't hear me. Yes, I have agreed that that telegram may be
read into the record as authentic and as having been received on the
day which it purports to have been received on.
Mr. Chadwick. Thank you, sir. Reading the telegraphic script at
the top, it is an instrument with the number MA820M.WA237 Long
Govt, NLPW — Washington, D. C, 21, Senator Joseph McCarthy,
Appleton, Wis. :
Today you were advised by letter delivered by hand to your oflace of the prin-
cipal matters which the subcommittee desires to interrogate you in furtherance
of your express desire transmitted to the committee by your administrative
assistant that —
and a false letter —
Mr. Ray Kiermans under date of November 10. The subcommittee appreci-
ates your willingness to help in the completion of the work in connection with the
Investigation of Resolution 187 and the investigations predicated thereon. Your
prompt appearance before the subcommittee can save the Government much
effort and expense. We are sure that you want to be of help to us in arriving
at a proper determination of the issues in controversy. We are, therefore, at
your disposal in executive session and for your convenience suggest that the
subcommittee is available to you commencing with tomorrow, Saturday, No-
vember 22, but not later than Tuesday the 25th, to enable the subcommittee to
hear you and allow time thereafter to prepare the subcommittee report.
Senator Benton has also been notified to appear by similar communication.
This action is being taken at the direction and with the full concurrence of the
committee members.
There is a typed signature to the telegram, the customary form,
"Senator Thomas C. Hennings, Jr., chairman, Senate Subcommittee
on Privileges and Elections," and final typed memorandum is not sig-
nificant to me," 187 22 25."
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Case.
Senator Case. I should like to ask counsel whether there is any
notation or identification on the telegram to indicate the date of its
delivery.
Mr. Chadwick. The Senator no doubt heard the date, which is the
21st.
Senator Case. That is the date of the transmission.
Mr. Chadwick. That is true, sir.
Senator Case. Is there any stamping or other indication on the
telegram to indicate the time of its delivery ?
Mr. Chadw^ick. Senator, I have already read, without asserting
the significance, from the telegram "187 22 25." I do not think that
answers your question.
However, at the head of the telegram in purple ink by stamp ap-
pears the following matter : "1952 November 22 A. M. 8 12."
Senator Case. May I see the telegram, please?
Mr. Chadwick. Yes.
Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that the stamping in reddish purple
ink reads "1952, November 22, A. M. 8 : 12."
48 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
In the black stamp at the top of the telegram is "Rec'd December 1,
1952."
The Chairman. Since there has been a stipulation with respect to
this telegram, I direct an inquiry to Mr. Williams: Do you have any
data which would help us identify the date on which it was delivered
or received by Senator McCarthy ?
Mr. Williams. I have not at this time, sir. I was just asked about
the telegram last night at 11 : 30, and I ferreted it out of the files so
that Mr. Chadwick might have it this moi'iiing.
I have not consulted with Senator McCarthy as to his recollection
as to when it was received, so I cannot help the committee at this time,
but I will be glad to consult with him further this morning.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, I would like — pardon.
]Mr. Williams. I will direct his attention to this telegram, and ask
him if he has an independent recollection on this subject.
The Chairman. I assume that the exact date of the delivery of the
telegram is not too important ; at least, it was delivered, because it was
produced by Senator McCarthy.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, there is some significance in the de-
livery date of the telegram.
The Chairman. Senator Case.
I am advised by the operator of the amplifying equipment that only
two microphones can be on at a time, and if you will wait until I indi-
cate who is to speak then he will turn on the microphone for that
particular one.
This amplifying system is not working any too well, so we have to
watch that, otherwise you may speak into a dead microphone.
Now, proceed. Senator Case.
Senator Case. ]Mr. Chairman, the significance of the delivery dates
of the telegrams is this : That it was ai:)parent on reading exhilDit No.
42, as it appears in the so-called H-H-H Report that the telegi-am
which appears in the print of the committee report as exhibit No. 42
was incorrectly placed, if it was sent, because it follows the letter of
November 21, and the telegram that appears in tlie print invites
Senator McCarthy to appear before the committee on November 20.
That obviously was in error, in some date or something of that sort,
so, in endeavoring to run that down, it appeared to me, that the tele-
gram, which shows as exhibit No. 42, if sent, should have been sent on
the 14th of November, because the first sentence of it refers to "having
received the reply of your administrative assistant received today,"
and the letter of November 21, 1952, recites that on November 14, 1952,
the subcommittee received the following communication, which was
the letter from Senator McCarthy's assistant.
Consequently, I suggested to counsel yesterday, after noting this,
that there must have been some other wire that was referred to in the
letter whicli appears as exhibit No. 44, by Senator IMcCarthy, dated
November 28, wdiich is not yet read for the record, but when it is it
will be noted that it says :
I just received your wire of November 22 in which you state you would like
to have me appear before your committee between November 22 and 2.").
Obviously, if he just received it on the 28th of November, he could
not have appeared before the committee sometime between November
22 and 25.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 49
I was wanting to determine if the telegram did show the receipt on
that date or a prior date. All I know is that from the stamping of
the telegram — there are two stampings to which attention has previ-
ously been called — in the reddish purple ink, of November 22, a. m.
8 : 12. That may have been the time that the telegram was received
by the Western Union. But above in black ink is stamped "received
December 1, 1952," so maybe that does not shed too much light, but it
seems to me it would be
The Chairman. It may possibly be cleared up when the other
exhibits are placed in the record. At any rate, this exhibit will now
be received in tlie record.
Mr. Williams. May I see that exhibit, Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairmax. You may, sir.
You may proceed, Mr. ChadAvick.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, I refer to exhibit No. 44, in the se-
quence of exhibits, which we are reading. This is a letter signed by
Senator McCarthy, and addressed to Senator Thomas C. Hennings,
Jr., chairman, Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, Senate
Office Building, Washington, D. C, and is dated November 28, 1952.
It reads as follows :
Senator Thomas C. Hennings, Jr.,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections,
Senate Office Building , Washington, D. C.
Dear Senator Hennings : I just received yoiir wire of November 22 in which
you state you would like to have me appear before your committee between
November 22 aud 25.
As you were informed by my office prior to the time you sent this wire, I was
not expected to return to Washington until Tliursday, November 27, on which
date I did return.
Sincerely yours,
Joe McCarthy.
Mr. AViLLiAMS. That is' also signed.
Mr. Chadwick. Yes, it is signed by Senator Joe McCarthy.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, obviously, if he did not receive the
wire until after the date that he was asked to appear he could not
be in contempt for failing to respond to it.
That was my only purpose in bringing out the significance of the
date there.
I thinlv it should be determined when the telegram was received
It makes quite a bit of difference. He did not have the physical
opportunity to appear on the suggestion.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Mr. Chadwick. I desire to make this statement in fairness to all
parties particularly because the exhibits from which we are quoting
are available in public form.
There was among the number an exhibit No. 42 which was also a
Western Union telegram. It was a telegram from Senator Thomas C.
Hennings addressed to Senator McCarthy at three different addresses.
We have made the most careful possible investigation, Mr. Chair-
man, and we cannot convince ourselves that that telegram was neces-
sarily sent; neither do we wish to be understood as stating that it
was not, but we are not presently in position to establish that it was
sent.
We also think that a date which would have attached to that tele-
gram, if it had been sent, was probably the 14th of 1952.
50 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The Chairman. The 14th of what month ?
Mr. CiiADwiCK. The 14th of November.
Mr. Williams. I want to say this, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
Last night when Mr. Chadwick called me he asked me to produce
the telegram which I have in fact produced this morning here.
At tliat time he told me that there was some doubt as to the au-
thenticity of the telegram which appeared in the report over Senators
Hennings', Hendrickson's, et cetera's signatures, in other words, he
had some doubt as he just expressed as to whether that telegram was
in fact ever sent. Of course, it is significant that bears no date as
is shown in the report itself.
I have combed Senator McCarthy's files this morning in an effort
to supply this.
I want to tell you this, Mr. Chadwick, so that you will have further
light on this subject, I find no copy of such a document as appears in
this report here, so that your conviction as expressed to me that this
telegram was probably never sent is certainly supported by our
search of the files.
Mr. Chadwick. Do I understand that you said to me that you
have no original, or, in other words, telegraphic copy of the telegram?
Mr. WiLLiABis. That is right.
Senator Case. Assistant counsel is sitting at my left, and he has a
folder here which I understand is a folder from the files of the so-
called Hennings committee. And in it appears a typewritten draft
of a telegram which is identical in wording to the purported exhibit
No. 42 in the Hennings report.
There are an original and four copies of that telegram. And on
the face of the original is written in pencil the words "not sent."
I think that would confirm the fact that probably it has not been
sent. This is from the stapled files here from the Hennings com-
mittee.
If the record is to be accurate, it seems to me that it ought not to
be suggested that the telegram, or what purports to be a telegram,
which is exhibit No. 42 in the Hennings report — it ought not to be
indicated that it ever was sent unless there is some evidence that it
was.
The Chairman. The record at the moment, as I understand it, says
that there was doubt as to whether it was ever sent or not, and I assume
that from the standpoint of the evidential v;alue, it would be considered
that it was not sent.
Mr. Chadwick. My phraseology on that was dictated by a sense of
precaution. This is a carefully prepared telegram, and it does con-
tain in notation the words "not sent," which I thougkt was strong
evidence that this telegi'am could not be sent. But I could not affirm
that another telegram of substantially the same phraseology or even
this same phraseology had not been sent, and we desire to be allowed
to continue our investigations on it so that we may have the final proof.
Mr. Williams, may I borrow back the telegram which I redelivered
to you ?
The Chairman. That would be in the record, and would be one of
the exhibits. So it belongs in the committee files now.
Mr. Chadwick. I desire to offer in evidence and have marked by the
stenographer as "Committee Exhibit No. 1" the telegram which has
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 51
been read, being a telegi-am dated Washington, 21st, addressed to Sen-
ator McCarthy, and signed by Senator Gillette.
Mi\ Williams. What date was that again, Mr. Chadwick?
Mr. Chadwick. It is the telegram which contains the word "21," and
underneath it, 1952, November 22, a. m. 8 : 12.
Mr. Williams. And would you read to me again the date on which
that purports to have been received ?
Mr. Chadwick. It contains at the top, by stamp, Received, Decem-
ber 1, 1952, and for further identification, it contains figures and
initials which are no doubt telegraphic detail which we cannot explain,
31381, SVC.
Mr. Williams. Now, do I understand that that telegram is being
offered in lieu of the one which appears on page 99 of what we will
call the Hendrickson, Hennings, Hayden report of exhibit No. 42?
Mr. Chadavick. I cannot confirm the "in lieu of." It is offered as a
telegram in the exchange of correspondence which has been heretofore
read. We did not offer or read the exhibit No. 42, which is tlie tele-
gram referred to by Senator Case and which contains on its face in
pencil the statement, "Not sent."
The Chairman. Counsel advised the chairman that that is the
telegram, Mr. Williams, that was read.
It will be received in evidence as a part of the committee files.
(The telegram referred to was marked "Committee Exhibit No. 1"
and will be found in the files of the committee.)
The Chairman. We will pause in the deliberations here for a few
moments so that one of the exhibits may be examined.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, I will proceed with the reading of
exibit No. 45, on the letterhead of the United States Senate. It is
dated December 1, 1952. It is addressed to Senator Thomas C. Hen-
nings, Jr., chairman of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and
it is signed at the end, "Sincerely yours, Joe McCarthy."
Dear Mr. Hennings : This is to acIi:nowledge receipt of yours of November 21
in which you state that your object is to reach an "impartial and proper conclu-
sion based upon the facts" in the Benton application, which asks for my removal
from the Senate.
I was interested in your declaration of honesty of the committee and would
like to believe that it is true. As you know, your committee has the most unusual
record of any committee in the history of the Senate. As you know two members
of your staff have resigned and made the public statement that their reason for
resignation was that your committee was dishonestly used for political purposes.
Two Senators have also resigned. One, Senator Welker, in the strongest possible
language indicted your committee for complete dishonesty in handling your
investigation. Senator Gillette also resigned without giving any plausible reason
for his resignation from the committee. Obviously, he also couldn't stomach the
dishonest use of public funds for political purposes. For that reason it is diffi-
cult for me to believe your protestations of the honesty of your committee.
I would, therefore, ordinarily not dignify your committee by answering your
letter of November 21. However, I decided to give you no excuse to claim in
your report that I refused to give you any facts. For that reason you are being
informed that the answer to the six insulting questions in your letter of November
21 is "No." You understand that in answering these questions I do not in any
way approve of nor admit the false statements and innuendoes made in the
questions.
I note with some interest your reference to my "activities on behalf of certain
special interest gi-oups, such as housing, sugar, and China." I assume you
refer to my drafting of the comprehensive Housing Act of 1946 which was passed
without a single dissenting vote in the Senate, either Democrat or Republican.
Neither you nor any other Senator has attempted to repeal any part of that
Housing Act. Or perhaps you refer to the slum-clearance bill which I drafted
52 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
and intvoduced in 1048, which slum-clearance bill was adopted in toto by the
Democrat-controlled Senate in 1949.
When you refer to sugar, I assume you refer to my efforts to do away with
your party's rationing of sugar, as I promised the housewives I would during
my 1946 campaign. If that were wrong, I wonder why you have not introduced
legislation in the Democrat-controlled Senate to restore sugar rationing. You
have liad 2 years to do so.
I thought perl)aps the election might have taught you that your boss and mine —
the American people — do not approve of treason and incompetence and feel that
it must be exposed.
You refer to the above as "special interests." I personally feel very proud
of having drafted the Housing Act in 1948 which passed the Congress without a
single dissenting vote — a Housing Act which contributed so much toward making
it possible for veterans and all Americans in the middle- and low-income groups
to own their own home. Likewise, I am proud of having been able to fulHll
my promise to American housewives to obtain the derationing of sugar. I proved
at the time that rationing was not for the benefit of the housewives but for the
commercial users.
I likewise am doubly proud of the part I played in alerting the American
people to your administration's traitorous betrayal of American interests through-
out the world, especially in China and Poland.
You refer to such activities on my part as "activities for special interests." I
am ciirious to know what "special interests" you mean other than the special
interest of the American people.
This letter is not written with any hope of getting an honest report from your
committee. It is being written merely to keep the record straight.
Sincerely yours,
Joe McCarthy.
With initials.
That, sir, completes the record of the exhibits of letters in connec-
tion with the presentation of onr point I.
The Chairmajst. Now, Mr. Chaclwick, have you proceeded to ex-
amine the Congressional Record with reference to further matters
pertaining to the subject or the incident referred to in category I ?
Mr. Chadwick. We have, sir, and I request the committee to take
judicial notice of the Congressional Record, Senate, August 2, 1954,
page 12318, with the following quotations :
Mr. Hennings. He was invited 5 times, but did not appear before the sub-
committee upon any occasion except 1, and that was in order to testify with
respect to a resolution which the junior Senator from Wisconsin himself had
introduced in order to investigate another Senator, former Senator Benton of
Connecticut.
That is evidence that Senator IMcCarthy had not appeared in reply
to the invitations which have been read.
Similarly, I asked the committee-
The Chairman. You may proceed to read-
INIr. Chadwick. To read from the Congressional Record ?
The CiiAiRMAx. We will take judicial notice of the Congressional
Record of the quotations you have read. Give the date and the jxige.
Mr. Chadwick. From the Congressional Record of the Senate,
August 2, 1951, at page 12331.
JNIr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I do not want my silence on this to
be construed as an acquiescence to the general principle that excerpts
can be taken from the record of Congress, statements made on the floor
of the Senate by any other Senator, and introduced in this record as
competent evidence ; we have not objected to the particular statement
involved because we feel that it is not prejudicial in any way.
But I do not want my silence to be construed as an acquiescence of
the evidentiary principle.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 53
Mr. Chadwick. In the interests of fairness
The Chairman. Have you given tlie date and page ?
Mr. Chadwick. I did, sir.
I desire to say tliis is read on our part in the interest of fairness
and accuracy for the purpose of ])utting into tlie record Senator
McCarthy's statement on the subject of the Lustron matter, lest it
appear or be thought that he made no reply to the matter in any
particular.
The Chairman. You may read it.
Mr. Chadwick (reading) :
Mr. McCarthy. So many misstatements have been made about the Lustron
matter, that I wonder whether the Senator from Idaho would like to have me give
him the facts in that case, if I may.
I had been writing, and I wrote, the Housing Act of 1948. I took up with the
special House committee the question on whether we should do something to try
to bring to the attention of the young veterans the various aids which Congress
had provided for them. The committee did not manifest any enthusiasm in
response to my suggestion.
I then wrote, with the aid of some very able AVashington newsmen, what I
thought was a complete, thorough dissertation on what aids were available and
liow they could be obtained.
Incidentally, I offered it to some of the magazines which today are screaming
about this matter. I offered it to them free of charge if they would publish it.
But they did not. I received offers from various corporations in the housing
business, who wanted to publish it. Lustron made what I thought was the best
offer at the time. Of course, later on Lustron went bankrupt. The Lustron offer
was 10 cents a copy for the first 100,000 copies, and 5 cents a copy for each suc-
ceeding copy. The testimony of the head of Lustron Corp., when he appeared
before the Banking and Currency Committee, was, as I recall, that that was one
of the few projects upon which they made money. They lost money and went
bankrupt on the others. But they made some money on that, at the rate of 10
cents a copy.
I may say that if I were embarrassed at all regarding the Lustron deal, it
would be because my efforts were worth only 10 cents a copy.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes the matters to which I and the staff
presently desire to call the attention of the committee on point No. 1 of
the matters which came under the notice which you gave.
With your consent, my associate will proceed with the presentation
of the matters under point No. 4.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Before we leave category No. 1 of the charges I
would like to call certain facts to the attention of the committee which
I think cast grave doubt on the relevancy, materiality of all of this
evidence.
Of course, I do not propose to speak in the face of your ruling of
yesterday that I should submit a legal brief on the law. I do not pro-
pose to discuss the law at all.
I propose to discuss certain facts which are now of record which cast
grave doubt on the materiality of everything that has been offered.
The Benton resolution, which was Resolution No. 187, introduced
in the 82d Congress calls, as I understand it, for an investigation of
Senator McCarthy looking toward his expulsion from the Senate.
The significant thing about that resolution is that it was never passed
by the Senate.
I Avill stand on this statement, this is the first time in the history of
the United States when a resolution looking toward the expulsion of
a United States Senator was passed authorizing hearings without a
54 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
vote by the Senate. I use tlie term "passed." It was never passed. It
was simply referred to the Rules Connnittee, and the Rules Committee
in turn referred it to the Subcommittee of the Committee on Rules and
Administration. That is significant.
The second significant thing about this resolution which in my
opinion invalidates the whole proceeding pursuant thereto is this, that
nowhere contained in that purported resolution, which was never acted
upon by the United States Senate, but which nevertheless calls for a
hearing looking toward the expulsion of a Senator, in an unprece-
dented form — that resolution contained no allegations, no charges, no
averments of any kind against Senator McCarthy as it was in its
original form.
So unconscionable did the Senate of the 83d Congress think it was,
that a resolution even calling for censure of another Senator did not
have specifications, allegations, and averments, that it voted 75 to 12,
to require the filing of specifications and averments, and the reference
of those specifications to this committee.
That was the way the 83d Congress deported itself, because it
followed all of the precedents of the Senate.
The other sigiiificant thing about this resolution as it now appears
of record, first of all, it was never passed by the Senate; secondly,
it had no allegations or specifications against Senator McCarthy,
The other significant thing is that the resolution specifically author-
izes the committee to investigate Senator McCarthy from the time
of his election to the Senate in 1946, and I dare say that 40 percent
of the report of which this committee can take judicial notice, as
I understand its rules, pertains to matters that antedated his election
to tlie Senate, because this committee as evidenced by its own report
conducted a cradle-to-1952 investigation of Senator McCarthy.
Many of the matters referred to in the report go back so far as
6, 8 years before his election to the Senate.
Therefore, the committee in its report as evidenced by the very
record which has been referred to here this morning w^as acting
outside of the scope of its authority from its first day.
Another thing was this, that it is evident now from the record
as introduced here this morning. Senator McCarthy, as the record
indicates, requested the right in the expulsion proceeding which
Senator Benton had initiated to appear in the hearing and confront
his accusers and cross-examine them.
Again I say that the history of the Senate shows tliat a proceeding
looking toward censure and expulsion is a judicial proceeding. The
prececlents are so numerous that I will not bore this committee by
alluding to tliem, but everything that has ever been written about
article I, section 5, of the Constitution, every authority who has ever
written a single line about it, has said that a proceeding thereunder
is a judicial proceeding, and the minimum safeguards that adhere
to any accused in any judicial proceeding adhere to the defendant
in an expulsion or censure proceeding. And those minimal safe-
guards that adhere to any judicial function are the right to be
apprised of the charges against the accused and the right to face his
accusers, and to cross-examine them, to test their credibility in the
crucible of cross-examination.
I want to point out that from the very record that has been intro-
duced in this proceeding over the past 2 days it is evident, No. 1,
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 55
that there was no authority from the Senate for the conduct of the
hearings at the start.
No. 2, there was no specification of charges.
No. 3, there was a denial of the right to cross-examine by the Gil-
lette committee, so that the committee was operating in an unprece-
dented manner that flouted every case that ever had been decided by
the United States Senate from 1792.
Furthermore, the resolution clearly, unequivocally, and unmis-
takably states that they are authorized only to expend funds to inves-
tigate Senator McCarthy from the date of his election. And yet the
report, the so-called Hennings, Henclrickson, and Hayden report,
shows, from even a cursory reading, that the committee was con-
cerned with things far, far outside the scope of its resolution ; so that
if the statement were made that that committee was acting in an
unauthorized way and that it was expending funds of taxpayers in an
unauthorized fashion, that statement, by the very record that is before
us, was true, and true in all respects.
JFurthermore, from even a cursory reading of this proceeding, it
is clear that although Senator Benton
The Chairman. Just a moment, Mr. Williams. You referred to
that report a number of times ; and since you have been and are con-
sidering it as a base, I think probably we will consider the matter of
having the whole report made a part of the record.
Mr. Williams. The part that I am alluding to, sir
The Chairman. Is the report on S. 183 of the 82d Congress, as I
recall.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Now, may I say this : Although there are no charges, and although
there were no specifications, and although there was not a single alle-
gation against Senator McCarthy in the original resolution looking
toward his expulsion, Senator Benton did appear before the Hayden-
Gillette committee — I believe he appeared on September 28, of 1951,
if my memory serves me — and he did in fact outline 10 cases on
Senator McCarthy to that committee.
The significant thing about the report is that on all the sworn
evidence that that connnittee heard only four pages of this volume
are devoted to it. The rest of this volume that I hold in my hand,
A\hich is the Hayden report, the Hennings report, and the Hendrick-
son report, if you will, is devoted to unsworn hearsay statements,
never taken under oath, of staff investigators. That was the kind of
judicial proceeding that that committee conducted, looking toward
the expulsion of a United States Senator.
The Chairman. Mr. Williams
Mr. Williams. And it is our position, sir-
The Chairman. JiLst a moment, Mr. Williams.
I do not mind giving you the time to make the statement, but we
are not trying over again the matters that were set forth in the so-called
Hayden report and Senate Resolution 187. I stated at the outset that
we were not concerned with whether those charges contained in that
resolution were true or false. The matter we were conducting our
investigation on is the charge of contempt w^ith respect to the Senate
committee; whether it made any report or not or w^hether the Senate
had done anyhing about it is not at issue here.
56 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
But I call 3^oiir attention also — if I can comment on that while you
are at it — the Senate did pass without a dissenting vote on April 8,
1952, Senate Resolution 300, which, in effect, as we construe it, con-
firmed and approved the activities of the committee to that point, and
also confirmed the jurisdiction.
INIr. Williams. My point is this, INIr. Chairman
The Chairman. And that, as I understand, was submitted for the
very purpose of testino- out the things we have just been talking about,
and the committee takes judicial knowledge of the fact the Senate
by a unanimous vote has in effect apparently passed upon what you
were talking on.
Mr. Williams. Let us assume that that, sir, is in all respects cor-
rect. If you can concede that the Senate's action on the date which
you just recited was a retroactive authority to this committee, none-
theless it does not give the committee wider authority than the Benton
resolution originally gave it, and the Benton resolution originally
authorized an investigation of Senator McCarthy only from the time
that he was a Senator, whereas the report shows that this committee
was concerned with matters that antedated by 6 to 8 years his senatorial
career.
The Chairman. Let me ask you this question : As I recall, much
of the investigation — now that is not in evidence yet, and, of course,
you are talking about something that is not even in evidence, that
report — but as I recall, there were quite a large number of matters
mentioned in that same report with respect to which the connnittee
investigated that postdated the election of Senator McCarthy in 1946.
Mr. Williams. May I have just a minute, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman, if I may conclude my thought, the vote on the Senate
floor, which I understand was 60 to nothing, can in no way as I under-
stand it be construed as a ratification of what the committee had
theretofore done.
It may have been a ratification of the original resolution under
which they purported to operate, but I direct your attention, sir, to
the fact that the original resolution carefully delimits and delineates
the scope of the investigation whicli the committee far, far exceeded.
The CiTAiRiNiAN. Well, of course the resolution itself is in the record,
and that will be considered by the committee in going over the evidence
which is submitted. It was placed in the record, and I indicated at
the beginning, it was done so Avhether it helped or hurt.
Mr. AViLLiAMS. Yes, sir; that is why we want all the facts to come
out, too.
The Chairman. They are in the record, sir.
Mr. Williams. The sole purpose of my remarks, Mr. Chairman,
was to call the connnittee's attention to all of this evidence, because
I feel, whetlier or not the committee was operating validly or in-
validly, within or without the scope of its authority, has a gi*eat
deal to do with the relevancy and germaneness of wlmt has been
offered lieretofore, and my only purpose in calling these facts to the
attention of the committee in this way was to show as best I could
in a very cursory way the fact that this whole proceeding was invalid,
sir, because it contravened all the precedents of the Senate.
They conducted a judicial proceeding with unsworn testimony.
They included in the recoi'd things on which they had no evidence.
The}' ])ut in the record reports, hearsay reports of staff reporters, and
HEARESIGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 57
I say that 48 out of 52 pages of the report are wholly and exclusively
predicated upon unsworn hearsay evidence.
No witness appeared before that committee to support 48 pages
of findings out of 52 pages of findings. The only testimony that is
supported by sworn testimony is the testimony on four pages which
Senator Benton himself gave, so I say, sir, that never in the history
of the United States Senate has an expulsion proceeding been con-
ducted without any charges, without any right to cross-examine, out-
side the scope of the delineated authority, and finally on unsworn
hearsay reports of staff investigators, never taken either in executive
session or in open session.
The Chairman. Well, that may be one of the matters the Senate
will want to consider, but of course we have the record. Whether it
finally shows actions constituting contempt in other matters that are
being charged or not, that is one of those things we will bring to the
attention of the Senate, and we bring in that testimony because this
is the means the Senate adopted for getting all the information so that
it can decide that very question.
Now I call your attention, so that the record will be complete on
this matter, not necessarily because it is needed but I think it ought to
be referred to, to this; the last part of the so-called Benton resolu-
tion, Senate Resolution 187, has this to say, and I start on line 4 on
page 4 of the print that was before the Congress :
and to make such further investigation with respect to the participation of
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy in the 1950 senatorial campaign of Senator J'olin
Marshall Butler, and such investigation with respect to his other acts since his
election to the Senate, as may be appropriate to enable such committee to
determine whether or not it should initiate action with a view toward expul-
sion from the United States Senate of the said Senator Joseph R. McCarthy.
Now that is rather a blanket charge to make some investigations to
say whether or not there should be charges filed. That is a far differ-
ent matter than what you have been talking about.
And may I say that no matter how weak the case may have been —
and I am not saying it was because I am not passing judgment on
that — still the fact that a Senate committee was considering it, and
through a series of letters and telegrams was attempting, to get Sena-
tor McCarthy there, and through a series of answers and letters to that
committee he said some things with respect to the committee, whether
they were right or wrong in what they were actually doing, which
the Senate has felt of sufficient importance to refer to us to investigate
at least.
Mr. Williams. I want to say, sir, that that blanket charge doesn't
stretch so far as to cover 1944, though. Blanket as it is, it goes only
back to 1947.
The Chairman. Well, we are not considering the matters in that
at all. We are only considering the conduct, and that is the
ground of the charge, his conduct with respect to a duly constituted
committee.
Whether they had a faulty resolution, whether they had one that
didn't say anything much at all, or not, so far as I can see now is
wholly immaterial.
What is material is his conduct with respect to that committee and
its activities.
58 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. May the record show also, Mr. Chairman — and I
don't mean to press this matter — I do have, as I explained yesterday,
another motion on this particular subject.
The Chairman. At the proper time we will consider that, be-
cause we liave had a very short time to prepare this matter, and
before we finally conclude the presentation of what evidence we have
been able to gather, we will check again, and if there are any loose
ends, why we want to take care of them.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. Senator Case.
Senator Case. I should like to determine, if I could, the position
of counsel on one point.
The Chairman. You are addressing your remarks now to Mr.
Williams?
Senator Case. Yes.
Mr. Williams, is it your position that the acts or attitude of Sen-
ator McCarthy toward the Hennings committee, if contemptuous in
nature, were not actually in contempt, because his committee was pur-
suing a course of inquiry which was outside the scope or authority of
his committee?
]Mr. Williams. It is my position, sir, that you cannot be in con-
tempt of a body, be it judicial or legislative, which is acting without
authority, and it is mv position that when this particular body under-
took to do something which nobody authorized it to do, not even the
one man who proposed the investigation authorized it to do, nor tried
to authorize it to do, it became a body which was acting in an un-
authorized, illegal manner, and that, therefore, it is impossible that
anyone could be contumacious in relationship to it in the legal sense.
Now, I want to say this to the Senator, in final answer to your
question : It is significant, sir, tliat while this committee said clearly
in its report that it had the right to subpena Senator McCarthy,
and tliat he was subject to the mandate of a subpena, it, for reasons
satisfactory to itself but never explained to others, did not see fit to
subpena him; it simply invited him.
Now, when you take Senator McCarthy's declination of the invita-
tion to that committee, against the backdrop of the performance of the
committee, I think we begin to see this case in proper perspective, be-
cause it is our position that the committee was unauthorized in its
scope of operations, that it was deporting itself in a manner which
was at war with all the precedents of the Senate by not taking testi-
mony under oath on the charges or on any matters, but rather by tak-
ing hearsay, unsworn reports of staff investigators, and including
them in a document which purports to be findings of facts in a judicial
proceeding.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. Senator Case.
Senator Case (continuing). I merely suggest that counsel for the
committee, and I also suggest that counsel for Senator McCarthy,
examine the record of the Senate a few days prior to the recent recess,
in whicli Senator JNIcCarthy presented the case of contempt against
Corliss Lamont for, I think, the somewhat similar issue was involved
there.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 59
The Lamont claim was that the investigating committee was seeking
to interrogate him, Lamont, on things outside the scope of the re-
sponsibility of the committee.
I think some statements that were made there, the presentations
that were made, would be useful to both our counsel and to counsel
for Senator McCarthy.
The Chairman. You have in mind that it may throw some light on
the legal reasons and legal grounds underlying this matter, Senator ?
Senator Case. I am sorry, I did not hear that.
The Chairman. I say, do you have in mind that the Lamont matter
may throw some light on the legal situation with respect to the matter
we are now investigating?
Senator Case. Well, that precise issue of whether or not the person
could be in contempt of a committee if the committee sought to inquire
outside the specific authority of the committee for the specific matter
referred to it, w\as an issue that was discussed in the Lamont case when
it was presented to the Senate a couple of weeks ago.
The Chairman. And the Senate, I think, adopted the resolution,
did it not?
Senator Case. The Senate did adopt the resolution.
Mr. Williams. To send it to the grand ]nry, and I understand the
case went to the grand jury, and the grand jury will pass, I assume,
on the prima facie validity of the connnittee which heard the evidence.
Senator Case. Of course, there are some other angles to this matter
of contempt here, the dating of this, the invitations to appear here,
that had been read into the record this morning, all were subsequent
to the adoption of Senate Resolution 300 by the Senate in wdiich it,
in effect, continued the committee and refused to withdraw the Sen-
ate Resolution 187.
Mr. Williams. Senator, I call your attention to the fact that much
of the evidence that was introduced yesterday antedated that, of
course, and the evidence that was introduced this morning in some
cases postdated that period. But I again call your attention. Senator,
to this fact: That all the resolution that was proposed and passed,
60 to nothing, did was to reaffirm the delineated jurisdiction of the
subcommittee which had been laid out in the original Benton resolu-
tion. It did not expand it and, of course, the committee had trans-
gressed and continued to transgress its jurisdiction both procedurally
and substantively, procedurally in refusing to conduct a judicial pro-
ceeding such as this committee is doing, and such as the Senate did
in this case.
The Chairman. You are arguing the law on it now, Mr. Williams.
I call your attention also, so that we will have this in the record, to the
fact that much of the testimony — I think I skimmed over the report,
and I have it in mind — considerable testimony related to matters that
postdate the election of Senator McCarthy and his induction into the
Senate of the United States in 1947.
Mr. Williams. None of it was based on sworn testimony.
The Chairman. That is another matter.
We are talking about No. 1 now. Let us stick with that one. We
are talking about the matter of whether there was any material before
the committee concerning a matter that happened after his induction
into the United States Senate in 1947.
52461 — 54 5
60 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Now the committee takes the position, as I have indicated before,
that it is our duty to cjet all of this evidence, no matter who it helps
or hurts, but I do want to point out to you that we are not just out on a
wikl-o:oose chase on this matter — we are bringing it all in. And in
the opinion of our staff and the members of the committee, there was
sufficient matter before that committee that postdated the induction
into office of Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1947 that probably it could
not be argued that it was not there at all. So that even if there was
only one item, it might have some bearing on the argument you have
just been making.
Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Williams has made a
very important point here.
He is, in effect, arguing for the exclusion of this testimony on the
ground that it does not state a case.
As I understand your argument, it is that this so-called Hayden
subcommittee was totally lacking in authority and had no legal status,
and therefore could not legally call Senator McCarthy or anyone else
before it.
Tliat goes to the question of whether or not it was facto or de jure
or, just what status do you argue for?
Mr. Williams. My feeling on that is dual, Senator, if I may. In-
sofar as the Benton resolution was concerned, which is Senate Resolu-
tion No. 187, it was never passed upon by the Senate, as the record
will show.
It is the first time that there was an expulsion hearino: in the Senate
without authority from the Senate, which is against all of the prece-
dents of the Senate.
Secondly, substantively thereby the jurisdiction was not vested.
Then they voided themselves in the matter, which was against all
precedents of the Senate, by not having charges specified to them for
hearing such as this committee has done. This committee has charges
before it.
The 83d Congress was careful to document the resolution under
which this committee is operating. That was not so in the Benton
case.
Thirdly, they denied, refused in that the right to confront and
cross-examine the accused.
Senator Stennis. Pardon me, I remember those points, but your
conclusion is, then, that they were without le^al authority to proceed?
Mr. WiLT-iAMs. They were without legal authority to proceed as
they started their original investigation, their hearings.
Senator Stennis. Therefore, it did not actually constitute a legal
arm of the Senate ?
Mr. Williams. Not for the purposes of hearing evidence on an
expulsion case.
I do not, of course, contest the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee of
Privileges and Elections as a valid committee of the Senate, but I say
in this mission they were outside the scope of their authority of that,
therefore, they did not constitute a valid arm of the Senate.
Senator Stennis. And could not legally proceed in your case?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Senator Stennis. Thank you.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. Senator Case.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 61
Senator Case. I would affain sug'gest that counsel both for the
committee and for Senator McCarthy examine the La Follette and
Lang-er cases to \Yhich reference is made on page 71 of the Henninfjs
report, for there the contention is made that in the case of the old
Committee on Privileges and Elections, 5 cases had been presented
to them that were unconnected with an election, and in 3 of those,
the Smoot, Burton, and Gold cases, the Senate adopted resolutions
directing an investigation of the charges, but in the other 2 cases,
those of La Follette and Langer, the petitions and protests of private
citizens were referred by the presiding ofiicer to the Committee on
Privileges and Elections, which then conducted investigations with-
out obtaining resolutions of authorizations from the Senate,
The contention is there made that on the basis of those precedents
in the Langer and La Follette cases, the predecessor committee pro-
ceeded on its own motion by reference of this material to it.
There is further cited section 184 of the Legislative Reorganiza-
tion Act. It seems to me that a study of those cases and of the Legis-
lative Reorganization Act would be helpful in arriving at a proper
conclusion.
The Chairmax. Senator Case, I will say that as far as the com-
mittee staff is concerned, we certainly will direct them to make a full
investigation of the matters you call attention to. We want to get
all of the precedents, all of the law matters, the arguments before us,
so that we can submit them all to the Senate in our report, on both
sides of the question, if possible.
Mr. Williams. I might say. Senator Case, that the Langer case
started out, sir, as an exclusion case, and through a series of procedural
mechanisms, which would take too long to go into here, it ended up
on the floor of the Senate as an expulsion case, but I think for a
number of reasons, neither it nor the La Follette case is germane to
this particular inquiry.
But I do not want to burden the committee at this time with a legal
proposition, and I will cover this in the briefs which I submit to the
committee.
The Chairman. I think you gentlemen will find as you investigate
the records of the Senate that the Senate fixes its own rules from time
to time, ancl they are not always the same. At least, that is what I
have found in my investigations.
And in the particular inquiry we are in now, I think we are plowing
in, many parts of it, virgin soil.
You may proceed with the presentation of evidence.
Mr. Chadwick. In the fourth
The Chairiman-. In the fourth category.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. de Furia, with your permission, will take that.
The Cttaiksian. I may say also that in the fourth category, some
of the material that has been presented heretofore will be considered
by the connnittee as having some bearing on the fourth charge.
Mr. de Furia, proceed.
Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Chairman, we call to the attention of the com-
mittee the 2 specifications, being, 1, the amendment offered by Senator
Flanders to Senate Resolution 301, reading as follows :
He has ridiculed his colleagues in the Senate, defaming them publicly and
in vulgar and base language (regarding Senator Hendrickson— "A living niiraele
without brains or guts"; on Flanders— "Senil(^-I thiak they should get a man
with a net and take him to a good, quiet place.") —
62 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
and also the specification based upon the amendment proposed by
Senator Morse reading as follows :
(b) Unfairly aceusod his fellow Senators Gillette, Monroney, Hendrickson,
Hayden, and Henniugs of improper conduct in carrying out their duties as
Senators.
Mr. Chairman, this part of the presentation will be brief. We
would like to read into the record certain documentary matters and
then call two witnesses, sir, whose testimony will be relatively brief.
The Chairman, You may proceed.
Mr. DE FuRiA. I call to the attention of the committee
The Chairman. Just a moment.
Mr. Williams. May I see the documentary matter that is being
introduced, sir ?
I think that I should have a copy of this material. I do not have
any idea what he is undertaking to offer, and therefore I cannot talk
to it.
Mr. DE Furia. I think that point is well taken, Mr. Chairman. The
first part of it is a group of letters which we have already offered and
read into evidence.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, sir.
Mr. DE Furia. So I take it Mr. Williams' objection does not pertain
to that, and we will be glad to show" him, sir, immediately what we
propose to present to the committee, based on the documentary
evidence.
Mr. Williams. I make that suggestion because I think we may be
able to save time if w^e can stipulate to some of these things.
The Chairjvian. Well, it has been difficult for us to make all the
contacts necessary in this investigation up to date As counsel knows,
we have had a very short time, and there have been many other ac-
tivities, and it has been very difficult to get everything prepared as we
would have liked to have it.
However, you may run across considerable evidence before we get
through that we can't apprise you of in advance, and you probably
will have some that you won't tell us about until it is presented before
the committee.
Mr. DE Furia. May I proceed, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Mr. DE Furia. In connection with the specification of Senator
Morse, we call the attention of the committee to the letters already
admitted in evidence from Senator McCarthy, being a letter from
Senator McCarthy to Senator Gillette, exhibit No. 6, December 6,
1951; a letter from Senator McCarthy to Senator Gillette, December
10, 1952, exhibit No. 10 ; a letter from Senator McCarthy to Senator
Hayden, March 21, 1952, being exhibit No. 13; letter fi'om Senator
McCarthy to Senator Gillette, May 8, 1952, being exhibit No. 18;
letter from Senator McCarthy to Senator Gillette, May 11, 1952, be-
ing exhibit No. 21 ; those exhibit numbers, of course, referring to the
appropriate exhibit numbers in the H-H-H report.
Now I would like to inquire, Mr. Chairman, whether Mr. Williams
has had an opportunity to examine the copy of certain proposed docu-
mentary evidence which we desire to admit from the Army-McCarthy
hearings.
Mr. Williams, I haven't had a chance to examine it, because you
haven't given it to me.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 63
Tlie Chairman. You will have a chance to see it before we get
through with the investigation. The committee will have to proceed.
Mr. DE FuRiA. It will only take a minute, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. We can't, of course, always give the new testimony
in advance. There is no rule requiring it. We like to do it as a matter
of courtesy, but in this particular instance we haven't been able to
get to it, but we will proceed.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Chairman, I ask that there be read into evidence
that portion of the testimony in the Army-McCarthy hearings, volume
25, of the transcript on June 2, 1954, before the Special Subcommittee
on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations, page
4782, reading as follows :
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Flanders in this statement attempts to raise the
question of religious racial bigotry. I think it is a vicious thing. I read his
speech. I don't believe he wrote it himself. I think the kindest thing you can
say about Ralph is that this may be the result of senility. He tries to inject
religious racial bigotry into this fight to expose Communists.
We desire to read into the record, Mr. Chairman, another portion of
the same testimony from the Army-McCarthy hearings, being volume
24 of June 1, 1954, page 4546, reading as follows :
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, this is a statement by the Senator from
Vermont in the nature of a question. I have been very patient with the Sena-
tor from Vermont as he has engaged in his diatribes over the past number of
weeks. I have felt that he is a nice, kind old gentleman. I wondered whether
this has been a result of senility or viciousness.
Mr. Chairman, we desire to read into the record another part of the
same testimony, being volume 32, June 11, 1954, page 6321, reading
as follows :
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I say that I have no feud with Mr.
Flanders. I have said that I thought it was not the result of viciousness but
perhaps senility that he is making these unfounded attacks. I feel, Mr. Chair-
man, however, that where any Senator has information of value to this commit-
tee, that then he should be willing to come before this committee and take the
oath and be cross-examined. However, as the Chair says, I am merely a witness
here. The Chair is running the committee, so I will abide by any decision made
by the Chair obviously.
At this point we desire to call as a witness Bernard Livingstone, sir.
Tlie Chairman. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn ?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony given in the matter pend-
ing before the committee will be the truth,' the whole truth, and noth-
ing but the truth, so help you God ? "
Mr. Livingstone. I do.
TESTIMONY OF BERNARD LYNN LIVINGSTONE
The Chairman. You may state your name and your address for the
purposes of the record.
Mr. Livingstone. Bernard Lynn Livingstone, 7110 Georgia Street,
Chevy Chase, Md.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Mr. DE FuRiA. You are here under subpena served upon you at the
direction of counsel for the committee; is that correct, sir?
Mr. Livingstone. That is correct.
Mr. DE FuRiA. And what is your business or profession, Mr. Liv-
ingstone?
Mr. Livingstone. I am a reporter for the Associated Press.
64 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. DE FuRiA. How long have you been employed by the Associated
Press, Mr. Livingstone ?
Mr. Livingstone. I am completing 25 years.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Do you know Senator McCarthy?
Mr. Livingstone. I do.
Mr. DE FuRiA. How long have you known Senator McCarthy —
known him to recognize and talk to?
Mr. Livingstone. Casually, upward of 4 or 5 years, I should say.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did vou attend a press conference called by Senator
McCarthy on June lia954?
Mr. Livingstone, Well, those were in the course of the Army hear-
ings, I understand. I do not think that I attended a press conference.
J did speak to him, however.
Mr. DE FuRTA. Did you speak to him alone or in company with other
reporters ?
Mr. Livingstone. I spoke to the Senator at the noon recess, approxi-
mately 12: ?)0, in company with other reporters.
Mr. DE FuRiA. However, it was not formally a press conference —
was that the point of your correction ?
Mr. Livingstone. That is the point I am trjdng to make.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Where did you speak to him on that day, Mr. Living-
stone ?
Mr. Livingstone. The Senator was at the witness table — this table
that I am sitting at, I believe.
Mr. DE FuRiA. In this room ?
Mr. Livingstone. In this room. On June 11.
Mr. DE FuRiA. You say there were other reporters present ?
Mr. Livingstone. Yes. The occasion was as the hearings broke up
for the luncheon recess, a number of reporters, myself included, walked
over from the press table to the Senator who was sitting at the witness
table, and asked him if he had any comment to make about a speech
that Senator Flanders was to deliver on the Senate floor that after-
noon, I think it was.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Will you give the rest of the conversation and, of
course, I am particularly inquiring as to whether Senator McCarthy
made any statement or reference or otherwise ?
Mr. Livingstone. Yes, we had received advance copies of the text
of the Senator's speech during the morning.
Senator McCarthy. Wliich Senator's speech ?
Mr. DE FuRiA. "Wliich Senator ?
Mr. Livingstone. Senator Flanders. And we had an opportunity
to look it over, and I think — I know I did, at least, underline several
points which appeared to be interesting to me, and when the recess was
called I walked over, stepped over from the press table to the witness
table, and handed it to the Senator and asked him if he had any com-
ment he cared to make on the Senator's speech.
A few minutes before Senator Flanders himself had walked into
the committee room and served notice on Senator McCarthy that he
w^as to make that speech.
And the Senator looked at it briefly and smiled and said :
I think they should get a man with a net and take him to a good, quiet place.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Now, you have quoted the utterance of Senator
McCarthy ; is that correct, sir ?
Mr. LivTNGSTONE. I liavB, sir.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 65
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you send that in as part of your story to your
office?
Mr. Livingstone. I did. It was very brief. It was sent from
downstairs in the press room, a matter of three lines, and the time at
12 : 46 p. m.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Was that story put on the national wires, containing
that quote, by the AP ?
Mr. Livingstone. That was, sir. That was placed in our running
national trunk story of the day. I don't know, I think the time on the
original was about 10 minutes after I had sent it in from the press
room here in the Senate Office Building.
The Chairman. Does counsel for Senator McCarthy wish to cross-
examine ?
Mr. Williams. I just have 1 or 2 questions, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Mr. Williams. I want to identify the particular speech, if I may,
Mr. Livingstone, that you showed to Senator McCarthy. Was that
the speech in which Senator Flanders spoke about civilization coming
to an end, in his opinion ?
He said, as I recall it, that the civilization through which we were
passing was coming to an end ; that is what identifies the speech in my
mind. Is that the one to which you have reference ?
Mr. Livingstone. I mj'Self don't know what was in the speech,
because the speech itself was made on the floor.
Mr. Williams. Was it the speech in which he said he drew the
parallel between Senator McCarthy and Hitler ?
Mr. Livingstone. I believe it was.
Mr. Williams. Then that is the speech, I take it
Mr. Livingstone. That was the speech of June 11.
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Mr. Livingstone. That is the one you are talking about.
The Chairman. Is that the only speech the Senator made that
•day ; do you know ?
Mr. Williams. That is the only one he made that day.
Mr. Livingstone. That is the only one.
The Chairman. Does that identify it for you, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Livingstone. I think so.
Mr. Wn^LiAMS. I am trying to fix the context of it, sir, because I
feel that may have relationship to the remark that was prompted, and
in trying to fix the context of it, I have to ask him if it was the speech
in which these things were said.
Mr. Livingstone. Well, this was the speech in which
The Chairman. The only thing he has testified to, of course, was
the remark that Senator McCarthy is supposed to have made.
Mr. Williams. Did you particularly, Mr. Livingstone, when you
called this speech to Senator McCarthy's attention, direct his atten-
tion to any facet of it, or did you just hand him the whole speech
and let him read it ?
Mr. Livingstone. I don't think you would say that I attracted his
attention to any particular facet. As is customary when you have
advanced texts, you underline certain parts that you think are inter-
esting, and I think my copy of the text was underlined here and there
throughout the copy of the advance.
66 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr, WiiJvTAMs. So that we can identify this context, did you under-
line that part of the speech which said that "our civilization has passed
through its maturity and is approaching its end?"
Mr. Livingstone. I could not recall.
Mr. Williams. Do you remember saying anything to Senator Mc-
Carthy, about this speech, about the coming of the end of civilization?
Mr. Livingstone. I have no recollection of that at all.
Mr. Williams. Do you remember saying anytliing to Senator Mc-
Carthy concerning the parallel that was drawn between him and
Hitler?
Mr. Livingstone. I have no recollection.
Mr. Williams. So you are not able to helj) us with the context?
Mr. Livingstone. I am not. I merely had the copy and laid it
on the table before him, and asked if he had a comment. My only
interest was in his comment.
Mr. WiLUAMS. Tliank you very much, Mr. Livingstone.
The Chairman. Are there any questions by members of the com-
mittee ?
If not, you will be excused, Mr. Livingstone.
Mr. Livingstone. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Call your next witness.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Joseph W. Hall, Jr., Mr. Chairman.
The CiiAiiaiAN. Mr, Hall, please come forward. Raise your right
hand.
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give in the matter
now pending before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Hall. I do.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Shall I proceed, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. You may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH W. HALL, JR.
Mr. DE Furia. What is your address, Mr. HaU ?
Mr. Hall. Silver Spring, Md.
Mr. DE Furia. Are you here under subpena issued at the request of
counsel for the committee?
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir; I am.
Mr. DE Furia. What is your business or profession ?
Mr. Hall. I am a reporter for the Associated Press assigned to
the Senate staff,
Mr, DE Furia, How long have you been a reporter, sir ?
Mr, Hall. Well, I have been a reporter about 20 years, and I have
worked for the AP since 1937,
Mr. DE Furia. Do you know Senator McCarthy ?
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE Furia. How long have you known Senator McCarthy ?
Mr. Hall. Well, about 4 years, I would say.
Mr. DE Furia, Do you know wliether you talked to Senator Mc-
Carthy on the evening of January 2, 1953, Mr. Hall ?
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir, I believe that I did.
Mr. DE Furia, Was that talk in person or by telephone, sir?
Mr. Hall. By telephone.
Mr. DE Furia. Where were you at the time ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 67
Mr. Hall. In the Senate Press Galley, Mr. de Fnria.
Mr. DE FuRiA. So far as you know, where was Senator McCarthy
at that time ?
Mr. PIall. I don't know, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Now, do you have notes of the telephone conversa-
tion between Senator McCarthy and you ?
Mr. Hall. No, sir, I don't have my notes. But I have a story, or
rather a file
Mr. DE Furia. Just a minute, please. You have a file ?
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuBLA.. Do you have any recollection at the present time,
independent of your notes or your files, of conversations between the
Senator and you that day ?
Mr. Hall. Well, based upon the record here, I believe that I talked
to Senator McCarthy that night and obtained from him a statement,
which we had requested.
Mr. DE Furia. Thank you. Now, what time was that, Mr. Hall?
Mr. Hall. Well, the story that I wrote is timed 8: 51 p. m.
Mr. DE Furia. All right. Now, will you tell us to the best of your
recollection and your knowledge what was the conversation by tele-
phone had between you and Senator McCarthy?
Mr. Hall. Well, by way of background, January 2 was the day the
Hennings subcommittee report was issued, and we had unquestionably
asked Senator McCarthy to comment, because that is our practice,
and according to our files, he had issued a statement, a written state-
ment. Then later in the evening, according to this story that I
wrote, which is marked as an insert in the Hennings subcommittee
report story, he telephoned a further comment on the report of 5 or
6 paragraphs, and I took, based on the record here — I believe that
I took that statement, and I believe that it. is accurate. Do you
want me to read it ?
Mr. DE Furia. Yes.
Mr. Hall. Just all of the paragraph ?
Mr. DE Furia. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Hall. Well, starting off with a full paragraph :
In his telephone comment, McCarthy said, "This report accuses me either
directly or by innuendo and intimation of the most dishonest and improper
conduct.
"If it is true, I am unfit to serve in the Senate. If it is false, then the three
men who joined in it — namely, Hendrickgon, Hennings, and Hayden — are dis-
honest beyond words.
"If those three men honestly think that all of the four things of which they
have accused me, they have a deep, moral obligation tomorrow to move that
the Senate does not seat me as a Senator."
Parenthetically, "tomorrow" was January 3, the opening of the
83d Congress.
"If they think the report is true, they will do that. If they know the report
is completely false and that it has been issued only for its smear value, then
they will not dare to present this case to the Senate.
"This committee has been squandering taxpayers' money on this smear cam-
paign for nearly 18 months. If they feel that they are honest and right, why
do they fear presenting their case to the Senate?
"I challenge them to do that. If they do not, they will have proved their
complete dishonesty.
"I can understand the actions of the leftwingers in the administration, like
Hennings and Hayden. As far as Hendrickson is concerned, I frankly can bear
him no ill will.
68 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
"Suffice it to say that he is a living miracle in that he is without question
the only man in the world who has lived so long with neither brains nor guts."
That ends the statement that I
Mr. DE FuEiA. Was that sent by you, Mr. Hall, to the AP office here
in Washington?
Mr. Hall. This statement from which I have been reading is a
coi)y that I wrote and was sent by teletype printer from the Senate
Press Gallery into onr office downtown.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did it go over the wire?
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir. Do you want the reference on that?
Mr. nE FuRiA. It went over the national wires; is that correct?
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. And that would be to your associated newspapers?
JMr. Hall. Yes, sir. It went over our trunk wire, which is the
A wire over the United States, at 9 : 45 p. m,
]Mr. nE FuRTA. On what day ?
Mr. Hall. On the night of January 2, as an insert giving Senator
McCarthy's comment in the story of the Hennings subcommittee re-
port. We had a long story out, I assume, on the Hennings subcom-
mittee report, and this was sent as an insert, giving Senator McCarthy's
comment on it.
The Chairman. Do you wish to cross-examine, Mr. Williams ?
Mr. Williams. I iust have 1 or 2 questions to ask, if I may, sir.
The Chairman. You maj'' proceed.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Hall, as I understand it when you talked to
Senator McCarthy on January 2 of 1953, he was addressing his re-
marks to this report about which we have had so much conversation
this morning, the so-called Hennings-Hayden-Hendrickson report; is
that right?
Mr. H \LL. Yes, sir ; I am sure we had asked him for comment on it.
Mr. Williams. And in colloquy that you had with him in that
telephone conversation, as I understand it, he said to you that if these
men believed these things to be true which were stated by innuendo
in this report, that it behooved them to stand up on the Senate floor
on January 3, 1953, and challenge his being seated; is that correct?
Mr. Hall. That's right. "I challenge them to do that," he said.
Mr. Williams. That is what he said?
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir.
Mr Williams. That's all.
Mr. DE Furia. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
The Chairman. Does anv member of the committee have a ques-
tion ? If not, then, Mr. Hall, you are excused.
The committee will now be in recess until 2 this afternoon.
(Whereupon, at 12: 18 p. m., the committee recessed until 2 p. m.,
this same day.)
afternoon session
Present: Senators Watkins (chairman), Johnson of Colorado (vice
chairman), Stennis, Carlson, Case, and Ervin.
Also present: Senator McCarthy; E. Wallace Chadwick, counsel to
the committee; Guy G. de Furia, assistant connsel to the committee;
John M. Jex, clerk of the committee ; John W. Wellman, staff member;
Frank Ginsburg and Ray R. McGuire, members of Senator Watkins^
staff on loan to the committee ; and Edward Bennett Williams, counsel
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 69
to Senator McCarthy, with his associates, Agnes A. Neill and Brent
Bozell.
The Chairman. The committee will be in session. Counsel will now
proceed with the presentation of documentary evidence, of which the
committee takes judicial notice.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this
evidence is with respect to point No. 5 of the notice which was hereto-
fore given to the parties as prescribed by the chairman covering inci-
dents relating to Ralph Z wicker, a general officer of the Army of the
United States.
That is supported in the statement by quotations from various pro-
posed amendments which have been submitted to this committee for
consideration by the Senate itself.
I therefore call attention to the amendments proposed by Mr. Ful-
bright to the resolution, Senate Resolution 301, in which he said :
Without justification the junior Senator from Wisconsin impugns the loyalty,
patriotism, and character of Gen. Ralph Zwicker.
Also, the amendment proposed by Mr. Morse to the resolution as
follows :
(c) As chairman of a committee resorted to abusive conduct in his interroga-
tion of Gen. Ralph Zwicker, including a charge that General Zwicker was
unfit to wear the uniform —
during the appearance of General Zwicker as a witness before the Per-
manent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on
Government Operations on February 18, 1954.
The third is from the amendment proposed by Senator Flanders to
the resolution. Senate Resolution 301, viz :
He has attacked the fame and besmirched military heroes of the United States,
either as witnesses before his committee or under the cloak of immunity of the
Senate floor — General Zwicker, General Marshall.
I ask the committee to take judicial notice that on February 18, 1954,
Senator McCarthy was chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations of the
Senate in the 83d Congress, 2d session, and also chairman of the
Senate Committee on Government Operations.
I also ask the committee to take judicial notice of the transcript of
hearing, and I propose to offer in evidence and read into the record the
following testimony given by General Zwicker under examination for
the use of the Committee on Government Operations, and appearing as
part of the record of hearings before the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations, of which Senator McCarthy was chairman, held on
February 18, 1954, using for the purpose the official transcript certified
and sworn to by the report.
The Chairman. Where was that hearing held ?
Mr. Chadwick. That hearing was held, sir, in executive session in
room 110, Federal Building, New York City, N. Y., Senator Joseph R.
McCarthy presiding.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Mr. Chadwick. I now begin the reading of the transcript of the
subject matter referred to:
The Chairman. General, would you raise your right hand and be sworn? In
this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly swear to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
70 HEARENGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Testimony of Brig. Gen. Ralph W. Zwicker, United States Army ; Accom-
panied BY Capt. W. J. Woodward, Medical Corps, United States Army
General Zwicker. I do.
Before we start, there is no need for a medical officer to be in here.
The Chairman. That is O. K.
Mr. CoHN. A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client, and it is the
same thing with a man who tries to be his own doctor.
General, could we have your full name?
General Zwicker. Ralph W. Zwicker.
Mr. CoiiN. General, to see if we can save a little time here, isn't the situa-
tion this — by the way, you have been commanding officer at Kilmer since when?
General Zwicker. Since the middle of July last year.
Mr. CoHN. Has the Peress case come to your attention since that time? I
am not asking questions about it.
General Zwicker. Yes.
Mr. CoHN. It has come to your attention, and you have a familiarity with
that case?
General Zwicker. Yes.
Mr. CoHN. Now, general, would you like to be able to tell us exactly what
happened in that case, and what steps you took and others took down at Kilmer
to take action against Peress a long time before action was finally forced by
the committee?
General Zwicker. That is a toughie.
Mr. CoHN. All I am asking you now is if you could, if you were at liberty
to do so, would you like to be in a position to tell us that story ?
General Zwicker. Well, may I say that if I were in a position to do so, I
would be perfectly glad to give the committee any information that they desired.
Mr. CoHN. You certainly feel that that information would not reflect unfavor-
ably on you; is that correct?
General Zwicker. Definitely not.
Mr. CoHN. And would not reflect unfavorably on a number of other people
at Kilmer and the First Army?
General Zwicker. Definitely not.
The Chairman. It would reflect unfavorably upon some of them, of course?
General Zwicker. That I can't answer, sir. I don't know.
The Chairman. Well, you know that somebody has kept this man on, know-
ing he was a Communist, do you not?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
The Chairman. You know that somebody has kept him on knowing that he
has refused to tell whether he was a Communist, do you not?
General Zwicker. I am afraid that would come under the category of the
Executive order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. What?
General Zwicker. I am afraid an answer to that question would come under
the category of the Presidential Executive order.
The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer the question.
General Zwicker. Would you repeat the question, please?
Mr. Cohn. Read it to the general.
(The question referred to was read by the reporter.)
General Zwicker. I respectfully decline to answer, Mr. Chairman, on the
grounds of the directive. Presidential directive, which, in my inteiijretation, will
not permit me to answer that question.
The Chairman. Let the record show he was ordered —
followed by stars to show the sentence was not completed.
The Chairman. You know that somebody signed or authorized an honorable
discharge for this man, knowing that he was a fifth amendment Communist;
do you not?
General Zwicker. I know that an honorable discharge was signed for the man.
The Chairman. The day the honorable discharge was signed, were you aware
of the fact that he had appeared before our committee?
General Zwicker. I was.
The Chairman. And had refused to answer certain questions?
General Zwicker. No, sir; not specifically on answering any questions. I
knew that he had appeared before your committee.
The Chairman. Didn't you read the news?
General Zwicker. I read the news releases.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 71
The Chairman, And the news releases were to the effect that he had refused
to tell whether he was a Communist, and that there was evidence that he had
attended Communist leadership schools. It was on all the wire service stores ;
was it not? You knew generally what he was here for ; did you not?
General Zwicker. Yes, indeed.
The Chairman. And you knew generally that he had refused to tell whether
he was a Communist; didn't you?
General Zwicker. I don't recall whether he refused to tell whether he was a
Communist.
The Chairman. Are you the commanding officer there?
General Zwicker. I am the commanding general.
The Chairman. When an officer appears before a committee and refuses to
answer, would you not read the story rather carefully?
General Zwicker. I read the press releases.
The Chairman. Then, General, you knew, did you not, that he appeared before
the committee and refused, on the grounds of the fifth amendment, to tell about
all of his Communist activities? You knew that, didn't you?
General Zwicker. I knew everything that was in the press.
The Chairman. Don't be coy with me, General.
General Zwicker. I am not being coy, sir.
The Chairman. Did you have that general picture?
General Zwicker. I believe I remember reading in the paper that he had taken
refuge in the fifth amendment to avoid answering questions before the committee.
The Chairman. About communism?
General Zwicker. I am not too certain about that.
The Chairman. Do you mean that you did not have enough interest in the
case. General, the case of this major who was in your command to get some
idea of what questions he had refused to answer? Is that correct?
General Zwicker. I think that is not putting it quite right, Mr. Chairman,
The Chairman. You put it right, then.
General Zwicker. I have great interest in all of the officers of my command,
with whatever they do.
The Chairman. Let's stick to fifth-amendment Communists, now. Let's stick
to him. You told us you read the press releases.
General Zwicker. I did.
The Chairman. But now you indicate that you did not know that he refused
to tell about his Communist activities. Is that correct?
General Zwicker, I know that he refused to answer questions for the
committee.
The Chairman. Did you know that he refused to answer questions about his
Communist activities?
General Zwicker. Specifically, I don't believe so.
The Chairman. Did you have an.v idea?
General Zwicker. Of course I had an idea.
The Chairman. What do you think he was called down here for?
General Zwicker. For that specific purpose.
The Chairman. Then you knew that those were the questions he was asked,
did you not? General, let's try and be truthful. I am going to keep you here as
long as you keep hedging and hemming.
General Zwicker. I am not hedging.
The Chairman. Or hawing.
General Zwicker. I am not hawing, and I don't like to have anyone impugn
my honesty, whicli you just about did.
The Chairman. Either your honesty or your intelligence ; I can't help im-
pugning one or the other, when you tell us that a major in your command
who was known to you to have been before a Senate committee, and of whom
you read the press releases very carefully — to now have you sit here and tell
us that you did not know whether he refused to answer questions about
Communist activities. I had seen all the press releases, and they all dealt with
that. So when you do that. General, if you will pardon me. I cannot help
but question either your honesty or your intelligence, one or the other. I want to
be frank with you on that.
Now, is it your testimony now that at the time you read the stories about
Major Peress, that you did not know that he had refused to answer questions
before this committee about his Communist activities?
General Zwickehj. I am sure I had tliat impression.
The Chairman. Were you aware that the major was being given an honor-
able discharge * * *.
72 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The CHAirMAN. Did you also read the stories ahont my lettefto Secretary
of the Array Stevens in \vhich I requested or, rather, suggested that this man be
court-martialed, and that anyone that protected him or covered up for him
be court-martialed?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
The Chaikman. That appeared in the papers on Sunday and Monday; right?
General Zwicker. I don't recall the exact date.
The Chairman. At least, it appeared before he got his honorable discharge?
General Zwicker. I don't know that that was true, either, sir.
The Chairman. In any event, you saw it in a current paper; did you?
General Zwicker. I did.
The Chairman. You didn't see the story later. So that at the time he was
discharged, were you then aware of the fact that I had suggested a court-
martialfor him and for whoever got him special consideration?
General Zwicker. If the time jibes, I was.
The Chairman. Were you aware that he was being given a discharge on
February 2? In other words, the day he was discharged ; were you aware of it?
General Zwicker. Yes; yes, sir.
The Chairman. Who ordered his discharge?
General Zwicker. The Department of tlie Army.
The Chairman. Who in the Department?
General Zwicker. That I can't answer.
Mr. CoHN. That isn't a security matter?
General Zwicker. No. I don't know. Excuse me.
Mr. CoHN. Who did you talk to? You talked to somebody?
General Zwicker. No, I did not.
Mr. CoHN. How did you know he should be discharged?
General Zwicker. You also have a copy of this. I don't know why you asked
me for it. This is the order under which he was discharged, a copy of that
order.
The Chairman. Just a minute.
You are referring to an order of January 19.
General Zwicker. I am not sure, sir. Just a moment.
The Chairman. January 18. Will you tell me whether or not you were at all
concerned about the fact that this man was getting an honorable discharge after
the chairman of the Senate Investigating Committee had suggested to the De-
partment of the Army that he be court-martialed? Did that give you any
concern ?
General Zwicker. It may have concerned me, but it could not have changed
anything that was done in carrying out this order.
The Chairman. Did you take any steps to have him i-etained until the Secre-
tary of the Army could decide whether he should be court-martialed?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
The Chairman. Did it occur to you that you should?
G 'ueral Zwicker. No, sir.
The Chairman. Could you have taken such steps?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
The Chairman. In other words, there is nothing you could have done; is that
your statement?
General Zwicker. That is my opinion.
IVIr. Rainvtli.e. May I interrupt a minute? Doesn't that order specifically
state that this is subject to your check as to whether he is in good health and
can be discharged?
General Zwicker. May I read it?
Mr. Rainville. I read the order. It is in there.
G?neral Zwicker. Paragraph 5 of this order states:
"Officer will not be separated prior to determination that he is physically quali-
fied for separation by your headquarters."
Mr. Raixville. That is a decision that you must make?
General Zwicker. Not me personally. My medical oflBcers.
Mr. Raixville. But he would report to you. He would not make the decision
without giving you, the commanding general, the order for final verification?
General Zwicker. It would not be necessary. If something were found wrong
physically with the man, he would be retained.
Mr. Rainville. He would report to you?
General Zwicker. No. He would be retained.
Mr. Rainville. It would be automatic, and you would not have to sign any-
thing? • .
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 73
. General Zwicker. I would not personally, no. The medical officer would make
such a report.
Mr. Raikville. But there was somebody in your outfit who could say, "This
man can go out or can't go out," and that was the doctor?
G?neral Zwicker. He could not keep him in if he were physically qualified for
separation.
Mr. Rainville. But he could say he couldn't go out, so that there was discretion
within that 90day period.
The Chairman. Let me ask this question : If this man, after the order came
up, after the order of the 18th came up, prior to his getting an honorable dis-
charge, were guilty of some crime — let us say that he held up a bank or stole an
automobile — and you heard of that the day before — let's say you heard of it the
same day that you heard of my letter — could you then have taken steps to pre-
vent his discharge, or would he have automatically been discharged?
General Zavicker. I would have definitely taken steps to prevent discharge.
The Chairman. In other words, if you found that he was guilty of improper
conduct, conduct unbecoming an officer, we will say, then you would not have
allowed the honorable discharge to go through ; would you?
General Zwicker. If it were outside the directive of this order?
The Chairman. Well, yes ; let's say it were outside the directive.
General Zwicker. Then I certainly would never have discharged him until that
part of the case
The Chairman. Let us say he went out and stole $50 the night before.
General Zuicker. He wouldn't have been discharged.
The Chairman. Do you think stealing $jO is more serious than being a traitor
to the country as part of the Communist conspiracy?
General Zwicker. That, sir, was not my decision.
The Chairman. You said if you learned that he stole $50, you would have pre-
vented his discharge. You did learn something much more serious than that.
You learned that he had refused to tell whether he was a Communist. You
learned that the chairman of a Senate committee suggested that he be court-
marshaled. And you say if he had stolen $r)0 he would not have gotten the
honorable discharge. But merely being a part of the Communist conspiracy,
and the chairman of the committee asking that he be court-martialed, would
not give you grounds for holding up his discharge. Is that correct?
General Zwickek. Under the terms of this letter, that is correct, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. That letter says nothing about stealing $50, and it does not
say anything about being a Communist. It does not say anything about his
appearance before our committee. He appeared before our committee after that
order was made out.
Do you think you sound a bit ridiculous. General, when you say that for $50,
you would prevent his being discharged, but for being a part of the conspiracy
to destroy this country you could not prevent his discharge?
General Zwickek. I did not say that, sir.
The Chairman. Let's go over that. You did say if you found out he stole $50
the night before, he would not have gotten an honorable discharge the next
morning?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
The Chairman. You did learn, did you not, from the newspaper reports, that
this man was part of the Communist conspiracy, or at least that there was strong
evidence that he was? Didn't you think that was more serious than the theft
Qf $50?
General Zwicker. He has never been tried for that, sir, and there was evidence,
Mr. Chairman
, The Chairman. Don't you give me that doubletalk. The $50 case, that he had
stolen the night belore, he has not been tried for that.
; General Zwicker. That is correct. He didn't steal it yet.
The Chairman. Would you wait until he was tried for stealing the $50 before
you prevented his honorable discharge?
, General Zwicker. P^ither tried or exonerated.
, , The Chairman. You would hold up the discharge until he was tried or ex-
onerated?
. General Zwicker. For stealing the $50; yes.
. The Chairman. But if you heard that this man was a traitor — in other
words, instead of hearing that he had stolen $50 from the corner store, let's
say you heard that he was a traitor, he belonged to the Communist conspiracy ;
that a Senate committee had the sworn testimony to that effect. Then would
you hold up his discharge until he was either exonerated or tried?
74 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
General Z wicker. I am not going to answer that question, I don't believe,
the way you want it, sir.
The Chairman. I just want you to tell me the truth.
General Zwicker. Of all of the evidence or anything that had been presented
to me as commanding general of Camp Kilmer, I had no authority to retain
him in the service.
Mr. Williams, It says "on" here — "on all of the evidence." I
think it changes the meaning.
Mr. CiiADWicK. I will read it as it is here — if it involves a correc-
tion I am sorry I said it wrong.
On all of the evidence or anything that had been presented to me as com-
manding general of Camp Kilmer, I had no authority to retain him in the
service.
The Chairman. You say that if you had heard that he had stolen $50, then
you could order him retained. But when you heard that he was part of the
Communist conspiracy, that subsequent to the time the orders were issued a
Senate committee took the evidence under oath that he was part of the con-
spiracy, you say that would not allow you to hold up his discharge?
General Zwicker. I was never officially informed by anyone that he was part
of the Communist conspiracy, Mr. Senator.
The Chairman. Well, let's see now. You say that you were never officially
informed?
General Zwicker. No.
The Chairman. If you heard that he had stolen $50 from someone down the
street, if you did not hear it officially, then could you hold up his discharge?
Or is there some peculiar way you must hear it?
General Zwicker. I believe so, yes, sir, until I was satisfied that he had or
hadn't, one way or the other.
The Chairman. You would not need any oflQcial notification so far as the 50
bucks is concerned?
General Zwicker. Yes.
The Chairman. But you say insofar as the Communist conspiracy is con-
cerned, you need an official notification?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir ; because I was acting on an official order, having
precedence over that.
The Chairman. How about the $50? If one of your men came in a half hour
before he got his honorable discharge and said, "General, I just heard down-
town from a police officer that this man broke into a store last night and stole
$50," you would not give him an honorable discharge until you had checked
the case and found out whether that was true or not ; would you?
General Zwicker. I would exx)ect the authorities from downtown to inform
me of that or, let's say, someone in a iwsition to suspect that he did it.
The Chairman. Let's say one of the trusted privates in your command came
in to yon and said, "General, I was just downtown, and I have evidence that
Major Peress broke into a store and stole $50." You wouldn't discharge him
until you had checked the facts, seen whether or not the private was telling the
truth, and seen whether or not he had stolen the $50?
General Zwicker. No ; I don't believe I would. I would make a check, cer-
tainly, to check the story.
The Chairman. Would you tell us. General, why $50 is so much more important
to you than being part of the conspiracy to destroy a Nation which you are
sworn to defend?
General Zwicker. Mr. Chairman, it is not. and you know that as well as I do.
The Chairman. I certainly do. That is why I cannot understand you sitting
there. General, a general in the Array, and telling me that you could not, would
not, hold up his discharge having received information
General Zwicker. I could not hold up his discharge.
The Chairman. Why could you not do it in the case of an allegation of mem-
bership in a Communist conspiracy, where you could if you merely heard some
private's word that he had stolen $50?
General Zwicker. Because, Mr. Senator, any information that appeared in the
press or any releases was well known to me and well known to plenty of other
people long prior to the time that you ever called this man for investigation,
and there were no facts or no allegations, nothing presented from the time that
he appeared before your first investigation that was not apparent prior to that
time.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 75
The Chairman. In other words, as you sat here this morning and listened to
the testimony you heard nothing new?
Mr. CoHN. Nothing substantially new?
General Zwickek. I don't believe so.
The Chairman. So that all of these facts were known at the time he was
ordered to receive an honorable discharge?
General Zwicker. I believe they are all on record ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. Do you think. General, that anyone who is responsible for
giving an honorable discharge to a man who has been named under oath as a
member of the Communist conspiracy should himself be removed from the
military?
General Zwickee. You are speaking of generalities now, and not on specifics —
is that right, sir, not mentioning about any one particular person?
The Chairman. That is right.
General Zwicker. I have no brief for that kind of person, and if there exists
or has existed something in the system that permits that, I say that that is wrong.
The Chairman. I am not talking about the system. I am asking you this
question, General, a very simple question : Let's assume that John Jones, who
is a major in the United States Army
General Zwicker. A what, sir?
The Chairman. Let's assume that John Jones is a major in the United States
Army. Let's assume that there is sworn testimony to the effect that he is part
of the Communist conspiracy, has attended Communist leadership schools. Let's
assume that Maj. John Jones is under oath before a committee and says, "I
cannot tell you the truth about these charges because, if I did, I fear that might
tend to incriminate me." Then let's say that General Smith was responsible
for this man receiving an honorable discharge, knowing these facts. Do you
think that General Smith should be removed from the military, or do you think
he should be kept on in it?
General Zwicker. He should be by all means kept if he were acting under
competent orders to separate that man.
The Chairman. Let us say he is the man who signed the orders. Let us say
General Smith is the man who originated the order.
General Zwicker. Originated the drder directing his separation?
The Chairman. Directing his honorable discharge.
General Zwicker. Well, that is pretty hypothetical.
The Chairman. It is pretty real, General.
General Zwicker. Sir, on one point, yes. I mean, on an individual, yes.
But you know that there are thousands and thousands of people being separated
daily from our Army.
The Chairman. General, you understand my question
General Zwicker. Maybe not.
The Chairman. And you are going to answer it
General Zwicker. Repeat it.
The Chairman. The reporter will repeat it.
(The question referred to was read by the reporter.)
General Zwicker. That is not a question for me to decide. Senator.
The Chairman. You are ordered to answer it. General. You are an em-
ployee of the people.
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You have a rather important job. I want to know how you
feel about getting rid of Communists.
General Zwicker. I am all for it.
The Chairman. All right. You will answer that question, unless you take
the fifth amendment. I do not care how long we stay here, you are going to
answer it.
General Zwicker. Do you mean how I feel toward Communists?
The Chairman. I mean exactly what I asked you. General ; nothing else. \\ /■
And anyone with the brains of a 5-year-old child can understand that question. , \(^
The reporter will read it to you as often as you need to hear it so that you'^~''
can answer it, and then you will answer it.
General Zwicker. Start it over, please.
(The question was reread by the reporter.)
General Zwicker. I do not think he should be removed from the military.
The Chairman. Then, General, you should be removed from any command.
Any man who has been given the honor of being promoted to general and who
says, "I will protect another general who protected Communists," is not fit to
wear that uniform. General. I think it is a tremendous disgrace to the Army to
52461 — 54 6
76 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
have this sort of thing given to the public. I intend to give it to them. I have
a duty to do that. I intend to repeat to the press exactly what you said. So
you know that. You will be back here, General.
Do you know who initiated the order for the honorable discharge of this
major?
General Zwicker. As a person, sir?
The Chairman. Yes.
General Zwicker. No ; I do not.
The Chairman. Have you tried to find out?
General Zwicker. No ; I have not.
The Chairman. Have you discussed that matter with Mr. Adams?
General Zwicker. As a person, no, sir.
The Chairman. How did you discuss it with him other than as a person?
General Zwicker. I mean as an individual. This is a Dspartmeut of the Army
order.
The Chairman. Have you tried to find out who is responsible?
General Zwicker. Who signed this order?
The Chairman. Who was responsible for the order?
General Zwicker. No, sir; I have not.
The Chairman. Are you curious?
'General Zwicker. Frankly, no.
The Chairman. You were fully satisfied then, when you got the order to give
an honorable diecharge to this Communist major?
General Zwicker. I am sorry, sir?
The Chairman. Read the question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
General Zwicker. Yes, sir ; I was.
Mr. Cohn. General, I have just 1 or 2 questions.
Ihe Chairman. Let me ask one question.
In other words, you think it is proper to give an honorable discharge to a man
known to be a Communist?
General Zwicker. No ; I do not.
The Chairman. Why do you think it is proper in this case? .1
General Zwicker. Because I was orderecf to do so.
The Chairman. In other words, anything that you are ordered to do, you think
is proper?
General Zwicker. That is correct. Anything that I am ordered to do by higher
authority, I must accept.
The Chairman. Do you think that the higher authority would be guilty of im-
proper conduct?
General Zwicker. It is conceivable.
T'e Chairman. Do you think they are guilty of improper conduct here?
General Zwicker. I am not their judge, sir.
The Chairman. Do you think to order the honorable discharge for a Commu-
nist major was improper conduct?
General Zwicker. I think it was improper procedure, sir.
The Chairman. Do you think it is improper?
Mr. Cohn. General, I just want to ask you this: Peress was discharged on
February 2, which was a Tuesday.
General Zwicker. That is right.
Mr. Cohn. He appeared before the committee on Saturday^ On Monday or
Tuesday, did you speak to anybody in the Department of the Army in Wash-
ingtf n, telephonically, about the Peress case? On Monday or Tuesday?
-~" General Zwicker. Let me think a minute.
' It is possible that I called First Army to inform them that Peress had changed
his mind and desired a discharge as soon as possible.
M". Cohn. Who would you have told in the First Army? Who would you
call? G-2, or General P>urre.ss?
General Zwicker. I don't think in that case I would call General Burress.
Mr. CoHN. General Seabree?
General Zwicker. No. It would have been G-1, or Dei>uty Chief of Staff.
:Mr. Cohn. Who is that?
General Zwicker. General Gurney.
P^Ir. Cohn. You don't remember which one it was?
General Zwicker. I don't recall that I called.
Mr. Cohn. D'd you talk to Mr. Adams in those days?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 77
Mr. CoHN. Did you ever talk to Mr. Adams before yesterday? You recall
whether or not you spoke to him.
General Zwicker. I know Mr. Adams, yes. There was one call, but I think
that came from a member of your committee, from Washington, requesting that
this man appear before your committee first.
The Chairman. You understand the question. Did you talk to Mr. Adams
before yesterday?
General Zwicker. I don't recall. I don't believe so, sir.
The Chairman. Did you talk to anyone in Washington?
General Zwicker. No, sir, about this case.
The Chairman. Within the week preceding his discharge?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
The Chairman. Did you at any time ever object to this man being honorably
discharged?
General Zwicker. I respectfully decline to answer that, sir.
The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer it.
General Zwicker. That is on the grounds of this Executive order.
The Chairman. You are ordered to answer. That is a personnel matter.
General Zwicker. I shall still respectfully decline to answer it.
The Chairman. Did you ever take any steps which would have aided him in
continuing in the military after you knew that he was a Communist?
General Zwicker. That would have aided him in continuing, sir?
The Chairman. Yes.
General Zwickeb. No.
The Chairman. Did you ever do anything instrumental in his obtaining his
promotion after knowing that he was a fifth-amendment case?
• General Zwickek. No, sir.
The Chairman. Did you ever object to his being promoted?
General Zwickeir. I had no opportunity to, sir.
The Chairman. Did you ever enter any objection to the promotion of this
man under your command?
General Zwicker. I had no opportunity to do that.
The Chairman. You say you did not ; is that correct?
General Zwickbhj. That is correct.
The Chairman. And you refuse to tell us whether you objected to his obtaining
jan honorable discharge?
General Zwicker. I don't believe that is quite the way the question was
phrased before.
The Chairman. Well, answer it again, then".
General Zwicker. I respectfully request that I not answer that question.
The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer.
General Zwicker. Under the same authority as cited before, I cannot answer it.
Mr. CoHN. Did anybody on your staff. General — Colonel Brown or anyone
"in G-2 — communicate with the Department of the Army on February 1 or
Pebruarv 2? In other words, in connection with the discharge?
General Zwicker. I don't know, but I don't believe so.
IMr. CoHN. To the best of your knowledge, no?
General Zwicker. No.
■ Mr. CoHN. In other words, on .January 18, 1954, you received a direction from
the Secretary, signed by the Adjutant GeTieral, I assume that is General Bergin,
telling yon to give this man an honorable discharge from the Army at any prac-
ticable date, depending on his desire, but in no event later than 90 days ; that
that was the order, and you had nothing from the order to change that order
in view of his testimony before the committee; and therefore, when the man
.came in and wanted an honorable discharge, you felt under this order compelled
to give it to him as a decision that had been made by the Adjutant General.
Is that correct?
General Zwicker. That is corrrect.
Mr. CoHN. And you received no additional words from the Adjutant General
on February 1 or February 2, and before you gave the discharge you did not
call and say, "In view of all of this, and his testimony on Saturday, and Senator
McCarthy's request for a court-martial, this man is in here now, and is that all
right?" You never made any such call?
General Zwicker. No; I did not.
" . Mr. Rainville. General. I think at one place there you said he changed his
"request to an immediate discharge? " ' '
General Zwicker. That is correct.
78 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Rainville. Then he had previously objected to the discharge or at least
he wanted the full 90 daysV
General Zwicker. No, sir. He requested to be discharged on the 31st of
March, I think, which would make it 60 days from receipt, rather than the full
90. He did not ask for the full 90, but he asked for what amounted to 60 days,
2 months.
Mr. Rainville. Then he came in as soon as he testified, and asked for an imme-
diate discharge and it was processed routinely?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Rainviixe. But you never thought it necessary after he appeared before
the committee or when he made that request to discuss his appearance before
the committee with him?
General Zwicker. I am sorry.
Mr. Rainville. My question is this : After he appeared before the committee
and he was still a member of your command, even though he was on separation,
you didn't ask him to come in and report what he testified to?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
Mr. Rainville. And you didn't think it was necessary when he came in and
asked for an immediate discharge instead of 60 days to ask him what transpired
so as to get some kind of an idea as to why he wanted it immediately, or why-
he is in a rush to get out now instead of taking the 60 days that he wanted
before that?
General Zwicker. That was beyond my ijrerogative. I did not.
Mr. Rainville. As an officer of your command, certainly what we usually
call the old man's privilege there, prerogative, they may ask that sort of question,
and so forth, so long as he is one of your command. But you didn't do it?
General Zwicker. No. He told me he wanted to be released, and I said,
"All right."
Mr. Jones. General did the counsel of the Army advise you not to discuss
the Peress ca.se?
General Zwicker. He did not.
Mr. Jones. He did not advise you?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
The Chairman. Who did advise you?
General Zwicker. No one.
The Chairman. What did you and Mr. Adams talk about yesterday?
General Zwicker. Mr. Adams and I talked about the various procedures of
prior meetings such as this. He tried to indicate what I might expect.
Mr. Jones. Did Mr. Adams advise anyone not to discuss the Peress case to
this committee?
General Zwicker. I am sorry. He did not advise me.
Mr. Jones. I mean to your knowledge, did he advise any other person?
General Zwicker. To my knowledge he did not.
Mr. Jones. General, what is .vour considered opinion of this order here for-
bidding you to assist this committee in exposing the Communist conspiracy in
the Army?
General Zwicker. Sir, I cannot answer that, because it is signed by the
President. The President says don't do it and therefore I don't.
Mr. Jones. What is your considered opinion of that order? You see now,
here is a perfectly good example of a Communist being promoted right in the
I'anks, all because of this Executive order here, in many respects, where we
couldn't get at these things earlier. What is your considered opinion of an
order of that nature?
General Zwicke^i. I won't answer that, because I will not criticize my Com-
mander in Chief.
The Chairman. General, you will return for a public session at 10 : 30 Tuesday
morning.
General Zwicker. This coming Tuesday?
The Chairman. Yes.
General Zwicker. Here?
The Chairman. Yes.
General Zwicker. At what time?
The Chairman. 10 : 30. In the meantime, in accordance with the order
which you claim forbids you the right to discuss this case, you will contact
the proper authority who can give you permission to tell the committee the
truth about the case before you appear Tuesday, and request permission to be
allowed to tell us the truth about the
General Zwicker. Sir, that is not my prerogative, either.
HEARIXGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 79
The Chairman. You are ordered to do it.
General Zwicker. I am sorry, sir, I will not do that.
The Chairman. All right.
General Zwicker. If you care to have me, I will cite certain other portions
of this.
The Chairman. You need cite nothing. You may step down.
(Whereupon, at 5:15 p. m., the committee was recessed, subject to the call
of the Chair.)
Senator Case. Mr. Cliairman
The Chairman. Senator Case.
Senator Case (continuing). In view of the fact that one of the
amendments referred to the committee was the one by Senator Bush,
which proposes certain rules governing committee conduct, I think
we ought to have some identification of Mr, Rainville and Mr. Jones,
for the purposes of the record. To my knowledge they were not
members of the committee, and I do not know who they were, and for
the record I think they should be identified as to who they were.
They apparently participated in the interrogation.
The Chairman. We will have counsel make that identification, if it
is possible, from the record.
Mr. Chadwick. I read, Mr. Chairman, from the covering page of
the transcript as follows :
Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; present also:
Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel ; Daniel G. Buckley, assistant counsel ; Harold Rain-
ville, administrative assistant to Senator Dirksen ; Robert Jones, administra-
tive assistant to Senator Potter ; and James N. Juliana, investigator.
Is that the matter that you had in mind. Senator ?
Senator Case. Yes.
Mr. Williams. I might suggest, if I may, sir
The Chairman. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams (continuing). Since that stipulation has been of-
fered in the record, perhaps it would be well to stipulate that Mr.
Eainville and Mr. Jones were attending in lieu of the respective Sena-
tors for whom they worked, who were otherwise engaged on thaf.
occasion, which is the fact.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Williams, it is my recollection from other ma-
terial that that is true, but I do not have that information here. I
believe it to be true.
The Chairman. Well, that would be the probability.
The Chair will rule that the committee will take judicial notice of
the record which has just been producBd.
Have you other matters there of which the committee can take judi-
cial notice, Mr. Chadwick ?
Mr. Chadwick. I have here a certification from the Department of
the Army, Office of the Adjutant General, Washington, D. C, in the
following matter —
^te
in reply refer to AGPI-OD-S 201 Zwicker, Ralph W., O 16 878 (24 Aug 54) —
and is as follows— I may say, sir, before I commence to read, for Mr.
Williams' benefit, that on the third page appears the following
language:
By authority of the Secretary of the Army: John A. Klein, major general,
USA, The Adjutant General—
and it bears the seal.
The Chairman. What is the material contained in that statement ?
80 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Chadwick. It is the official record in the custody of the Office
of the Adjutant General, showing the military record of Ralph W.
Zwicker.
The Chairman. The committee will take judicial notice of that, and
it will be placed in the record.
Mr. Chadwick. Reading from the word "Certificate" as follows:
I certify the official records in the custody of the Office of The Adjutant Gen-
eral show that Ralph Wise Zwicker, O 16 878, was born in Stoughton, Wisconsin,,
on 17 April 1903. He attended the University of Wisconsin for approximately
two years. He was appointed cadet to the United States Military Academy on
2 .luly 1923. Upon graduation on 14 June 1927 he was appointed a Second Lieu-
tenant of Infantry, Regular Army, accepted 14 June 1927 ; promoted to First
Lieutenant, Regular Army, 10 July 1933 ; promoted to Captain, Regular Army,
14 June 1937 ; appointed Major, Army of the United States, 4 February 1941,
accepted 6 February 1941; promoted to Lieutenant Colonel, Army of the United
States, 23 June 1942 ; promoted to Major, Regular Army, 14 June 1944 : promoted
to Colonel, Army of the United States, 16 June 1944 ; promoted to Lieutenant
Colonel, Regular Army, 15 July 1948 ; promoted to Colonel, Regular Army, 23
March 1951; appointed Brigadier General, Army of the United States, 16 March
1953.
He graduated from the United States Military Academy, 1927 ; Infantry
School, Company Officers' Course, 1933 ; Command and General Staff School,.
1942 ; Naval War College, 1945 ; National War College. 1947 : and was awarded
the educational eqiiivalent to the Armed Forces Staff College, 1947.
General Zwicker was awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in action, 6 .Tune
1944: the Legion of Merit for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the perform-
ance of outstanding services during the periods from 28 July 1944, to IS August
1944, and from 30 August 1944, to 15 October 1944; Oak Leaf Cluster to the
Legion of Merit for the period from 15 October 1944, to May 1945 ; Bronze Star
Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters ; Commendation Ribbon with Metal Pendant.
Extracts of the citations for these awards are attached.
His combat record began in April 1944 when he went to Europe as Com-
manding Officer of the 3Sth Infantry Regiment ; he served in this capacity until
May 1945 ; his commander said of him during this i)eriod : "Mentally energetic,
self-reliant and considerate. He has an exceptionally pleasing personality,
mixes well and inspires confidence." From July 1945, to December 1945 he
attended the Naval War Collesre, graduating with a rating of "Superior."
From January 1946 to Au.enist 1946 be was Assistant to the Assistant Chief of
Staff, G-3, Army Ground Forces, Washington, D. C. His superior officer said
of him : "exceptionally able and experienced, cooperative, professionally well
qualified for any staff or command assignment. Possesses good judgment and
commonsense to a marked degree." From September 1946 to June 1947 he at-
tended the National War College, graduating with a rating of "Superior."'
The Commandant of the College said of him : "He has shown special aptitude
for duty with highest combined or joint staffs." From .Tune 1947 to April 1949
be was Chief of Organization Branch. Organization-Requirements Group, Organi-
zation and Training Division, General Staff, United States Army, Department
of the Army, Washington, D. C. His superior officer said of him : "An officer
of the highest type in character and ability. Seeks responsibility, demonstrates
Initiative and force in his work." From April 1949 to July 1949 he was Deputy
to the Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff, IT. S. Army for Civilian Component
Affairs, in the Office Chief of Staff, Washington, D. C. His superior officer said
of him : "A superior, bisrh type officer with a great deal of initiative and ability.
High sense of duty. Reasons to logical conclusions and puts them into effect.
Has capacity for leadership and hi'^h command and is general officer material."
From August 1949 to August 1950 he was Deputy Director, Operations and
Trainin? Division, Headquarters, European Command. From August 19.50 to
May 1952 he was Commanding Officer. 18th Infantry Regiment, Europe. His
commander said of him : "An officer with extremely hi.gh standards. Has a fine
background of combat and staff experience. I consider him well qualified to be
a general officer." From June 19.52 to January 1953 be was a member of Military
Faculty Committee No. 1. National War College. His superior officer said of him :
"He is considered to be exceptionally well qualified for high command or staff
assignments: is fully qualified and is hierhly recommended for promotion to
general officer rank." From February 1953 to June 1953 he was Assistant
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 81
Division Commander, 5th Infantry Division, ludiautown Gap IVIilitary Reserva-
tion. His commanding general said of him : "A superior general officer, in-
telligent, energetic, and extremely loyal." From July 1953 to August 1954 he
was Commanding General, Camp Kilmer, New Jersey. His superior officers
said of him : "Loyal, dependable, level headed and mature in judgment," and
^'Outstanding officer, fine character and integrity."
General Zwicker is presently under transfer orders to Army Forces, Far East,
for assignment within that theater, departing on 27 September 1954.
By authority of the Secretary of the Army :
John A. Klein.
Major General, US!A,
The Adjutant General.
1 Incl. : Extract of Citations.
There is a note, "One enclosure, extract of citations," and the matter
is rendered under seaL
The extracts from the citations which are referred to in the order
are as follows :
Silver Star: For gallantry in action on the coast of Normandy, 6 Jun 44.
Bronze Star Medal : The 2d Inf Div was heavily engaged before Hill 192 in
Normandy, France at the time Col Zwicker as.sumed command of the 38th Inf
Regt. His responsibilities were exceedingly grave, due first, to the assumption
of command while units were in contact ; secondly, to the fact that Germany
defensive positions possessed high ground and observation. Nevertheless, Col.
Zwicker capably directed combat operations and guided his command in a most
commendable manner through the campaign of Normandy.
Bronze Star Medal : In mid-August, the 2d Inf Div moved to Brest on the
Brittany peninsula in France. The reduction of Brest involved detailed and
continuous coordination of arms in order to eliminate Germany defensive posi-
tions prepared with great skill over a period of four years. The 38th Inf Regt,
commanded by Col Zwicker, contributed materially to the methodical progress
which enforced surrender of the garrison on IS Sep 1944.
Bronze Star Medal : For meritorious achievement against an armed enemy
during the period June 1944 to May 1945.
Legion of Merit : The bitter fighting during the fall and early winter in
Germany was followed by the German counter offensive in December, which tem-
porarily halted all forward progress. The enemy penetration was stopped as
the Division aided immeasurably in holding the northern hinge of the bulge near
Camp d'Elsenborn, Belgium. The hardships and long hours were extremely
wearing on physical strength and demanded utmost care to direct and guide
various elements of the Division. Col Zwicker capably coordinated and super-
vised the joint efforts of both staff and command during this period.
Army Commendation Medal: For outstanding achievement in planning and
developing the organization of the proposed new Infantry Division (15 Jan 47).
The Chairman. Does that cover the record matter that the com-
mittee decided to take judicial notice of, Mr. Chadwick?
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, this is a certified paper, but I would
like, because of the difficulty of transcribing, for the stenographer to
have it available for checking purposes against his transcript, to be
returned to me.
The Chairman. It may be received in evidence as exhibit No. 2.
(Tlie document referred to was marked "Committee Exhibit No. 2"
and will be found in the files of the committee.)
Mr. Chadwick. That, sir, comjirises our presentation on the fifth
point of our evidence relating to Ralph W. Zwicker, general. United
States Army.
Mr. Williams. I am sorry, I didn't understand what you just said.
Mr. Chadwick. I said that comprises all of our presentation on
point 5 with relation to Gen. Ralph W. Zwicker.
I mean, however, it is understood we have the right to return to
this subject before we complete our entire case. That is what I have
to present at this moment on that point.
82 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The Chairman. Mr. de Fiiria, are you ready to proceed with the
next matter ?
Mr. DE FuRiA. We are, Mr. Chairman, if you desire us to do so.
The Chairman. I will advise you, Mr. Williams, that counsel thinks
that the evidence the committee has gathered together on two other
categories can be covered tomorrow.
The report, or series of reports rather, in the Army-McCarthy con-
troversy have not been examined by us at all. Obviously there are
some matters referred to tliere that concern this committee and which
have been referred to us, so at tliis point we will recess the public hear-
ing until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.
Just a moment before you leave. The committee will go into execu-
tive session. We have matters to consider, so we will continue in
executive session.
Will our friends kindly leave the room so that we may go on with
our meeting?
(Whereupon, at 2 : 23 p. m., the hearing recessed to reconvene
Thursday, September 2, 1954, at 10 a. m.)
HEAEINGS ON SENATE EESOLUTION 301
thursday, september 2, 1954
United States Senate,
Select Committee To Study Censure Charges Pursuant
TO Senate Order on Senate Resolution 301,
Washington, D. C.
The select committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 : 05 a. m. in the
caucus room. Senate Office Building, Senator Arthur V. Watkins
(chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Watkins (presiding) , Johnson of Colorado (vice
chairman), Stennis, Carlson, Case, and Ervin,
Also present: Senator McCarthy; E. Wallace Chadwick, counsel
to the committee: Guy de Furia, assistant counsel to the committee;
John M. Jex, clerk of the committee ; John W. Wellman, staff member ;
Frank Ginsburg and Ray R. McGuire, members of Senator Watkins'
staff on loan to the committee ; and Edward Bennett Williams, counsel
to Senator McCarthy, with his associates, Agnes A. Neill and Brent
Bozell.
The Chairman. The committee will resume session.
Mr. Chadwick, will you proceed with the presentation of the docu-
mentary matter which the committee has taken judicial notice of ?
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, we will proceed with the matters
embraced within point 2 of the notice heretofore given and read into
the record :
Incidents of encouragement of United States employees to violate the law.
I will read from that notice the appropriate excerpts from amend-
ments offered to Senate Resolution 301 by several Senators :
A. Amendment proposed by Mr. Fulbright to the resolution (S. Res. 301) to
censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz: "(5) The junior Sena-
tor from Wisconsin openly, in a public manner before nationwide television,
invited and urged employees of the Government of the United States to violate
the law and their oaths of office."
B. Amendment proposed by Mr. Morse to the resolution —
in question —
viz: "(e) openly invited and incited employees of the Government to violate
the law and their oaths of office by urging them to make available information,
including classified information, which, in the opinion of the employees would
be of assistance to the junior Senator from Wisconsin in conducting his investi-
gations, even though the supplying of such information by the employee would
be illegal and in violation of Presidential order and contrary to the constitu-
tional rights of the Chief Executive under the separation-of-powers doctrine."
C. Amendment proposed by Mr. Flanders to the resolution (S. Res. 301)
* * * viz: "(14) He has publicly incited Government employees to violate their
security oaths and serve as his personal informants, thus tending to break down
the orderly chain of command in the civil service, as well as violating the
security provisions of the Government."
83
84 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chaii-man
The Chairman. Mr, Williams.
Mr. Williams. I wonder if you could furnish us, sir, with a copy of
the documentary evidence which Mr. Chadwick proposes to introduce
this morning so that we might follow it along.
The Chairman. Do you have copies of the documentary evidence,
Mr Chadwick?
Mr, Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, I think we can find separate copies
to be delivered to Mr. Williams. I will have to turn to my assistants
for that.
Senator Stennis. Do you have copies for the committee members?
The Chairman. Do you have copies for the committee?
Mr. Chad^vick. I am afraid we do not have that many copies.
Mr. Williams. I would rather have a committee member liave mine,
if there is any choice to be made.
Senator Stennis, No. My suggestion was secondary to the counsel.
1 think he is entitled to the document.
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Johnson. Surely.
Senator Stennis. Surely.
The Chairman. I think if I remember correctly that the material
will be taken from the hearing records of the Army-McCarthy con-
troversy, and I assume that counsel has a copy of that, and the page
number.
Mr. Williams. That was a pretty long controversy, though. Senator
Watkins, and I could not carry it all down here this morning.
The Chairman, I realize that. And I hope we have copies for you.
Mr, Chadwick, I am in difficulty with respect to this, Mr. Wil-
liams, only for this reason. We have our four working trial briefs to
which I intended to refer, but I relieved two of my assistants this
morning to pursue inquiry outside. They have their copies with
them. Mr. de Furia needs his copy. I have mine.
You understand the dilemma in which I find myself. If you had
asked me yesterday — please do not think I am criticizing you — but if
vou had asked me yesterday, I would have been better prepared on
this.
You can be assured, of course, that we are reading from the records
of the committee. But that is not very helpful to you, sir.
Mr. Williams. Did I understand you to say that you had four,
Mr. Chadwick?
Mr. Chadwick. Four working copies.
Mr, Williams, May we not have at least one of those so that we
can follow the evidence ?
Mr. Chadwick. I don't believe you understood me. Two of them
are in the possession of gentlemen who are not here. Mr. de Furia,
my assistant, must have his copy.
If the chairman will indulge us, w^e will send a messenger imme-
diately upstairs to our room to see if we can get these papers.
INIr. Williams. All right.
The Chairman. We will pause a moment here while we untangle
this difficulty.
(Discussion off the record.)
The Chairman. The committee will resume session.
HEARESTGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 85
Mr. Chadwick. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Williams
now has copies of the matter, and we can proceed in course.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the committee to take judicial notice that the
Army-McCarthy hearing under Chairman Mundt was public and was
televised nationally.
The Chairman. The committee will take such notice.
Mr. Chadwick. I offer and read into evidence certain excerpts from
the transcript of the Army-McCarthy hearing before the Perma-
nent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Govern-
ment Operations on May 27, 1954, May 28, 1954, June 15, 1954, and
June 16, 1954, at the following pages indicated, asking the committee
to take judicial notice thereof.
The Chairman. That will be the order.
Mr. Chadwick. I suggest that the counsel for Senator McCarthy
should and no doubt will, be accorded the right to offer any other
relevant and material excerpts from such transcript.
The Chairman. Well, that is provided for and there is no necessity
for notice to be served upon Senator McCarthy. That, of course,
has been the ruling and understanding of the committee all along.
We want to get all the relevant and pertinent evidence, no matter
where it leads, as long as it will give light on the charges that are
before the committee.
We are doing that for the benefit of the Senate as well as for the
members of this particular select committee. You may proceed, Mr.
Chadwick.
Mr. Chadwick. I am about to read from page 3915, May 27, 1954,
in volume 22. I ask Mr. Williams if that is conveniently at hand to
him.
Mr. Williams. Yes.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Mr. CHAD^VICK (reading) :
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, in view of Senator McClellan's statement
and his request, I would like to make it clear that I think that the oath which
every person in this Government takes, to protect and defend this country,
against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that oath towers far above any
Presidential secrecy directive. And I will continue to receive information such
as I received the other day. In view of Senator IMcClellan's statement that he
feels that it is a crime for someone to give me information about traitors in
Government, I am duty-bound not to give the Senator the names of those
informants.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I,^ of course, recognize that this
evidence has to be introduced piecemeal from the record. And I cer-
tainly am cognizant of the fact that we have the right in the sense
to offer such portions of the record as we choose.
The Chairman. So long as it is relevant and material to this issue.
Mr. WiLLL4MS. Yes, that would be for the Chair to decide.
The Chairman. I want to make that clear now, because we could
not have just everything offered. I am sure you would not attempt
to do that, either.
Mr. WiLLL^MS. I would not.
The thing that disturbs me, however, is that what Mr. Chadwick
has just read does not present the full picture, and it is almost out of
context, because antedating this colloquy which he is reading there
is a colloquy which makes it clear what Senator McCarthy had refer-
ence to when he said, "I will continue to receive information such as
86 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
I received the other day." And I will have to get the pagination for
the committee.
The Chairman. If yon can do that, Mr. Williams, we would be vei*y
glad to put that in, because I can see very clearly that there ought to
be enough of the background so tJiat we would not be taking the state-
ments out of context.
Mr. WiLLiAMw. I have that here, sir. I have the quote to which I
have reference. It may be that the committee
The Chairman. Would you submit it to Mr. Chadwick and we will
probably have it read or take a look at it.
Mr. Williams. I can read it in just a sentence — it is just a sentence
long — two sentences.
The Chairman. Give us the page, and so on.
Mr. Williams. I have not the page. Tliat is why I want to read it.
Maybe we can have some help here in finding it.
So far as I am concerned, I would like to notify those 2 million Federal em-
ployees that I feel it is their duty to give us any information which they have
about graft, corruption, communism, treason, and that there is no loyalty to a
superior officer which can tower above and beyond their loyalty to their country —
in other words, from the "which Mr. Chadwick has made'' it is not
clear what information is referred to, but if you read the entire context
it becomes apparent that reference is made to information on graft,
corruption, communism, and treason in the executive branch of the
Government. I feel that should go in, and I think that we ought to
find that here in this.
The Chairman. We will accept it on your statement. Was that
prior to the material that Mr. Chadwick was just reading — did that
occur
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Senator Carlson. I have a copy here of some notes, and a letter
from Senator Wayne Morse in which he copied that quote, and that is
found in transcript volume 22, page 3918.
Mr. Williams. I find it now.
The Chairman. Just a moment.
Mr, Williams, I am advised by our staff that the one you just read
is the next one.
Mr. Williams. I see.
The Chairman. The next one is the one that counsel for the com-
mittee intended to read.
Mr. Williams. Good. I think that places this whole thing in
proper context.
The Chairman. We intend to do just what you advised and sug-
gested should be done.
If, inadvertently, by not covering the entire record, we have left
anything out, we will be only too happy, as we advised you last night,
to receive suggestions, anything we can do to help get all the evidence
that is relevant and material to the issues here.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. And we renew that offer now. If you have any
leads or any suggestions or any clues that will help us get evidence or
material relevant to these charges that you think ought to be in, for
the information of the committee and the United States Senate, of
course, for which we are working, then we will be very glad to put
d
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 87
the staff to work on those matters, because this is to be an all-out
investigation to get all the facts, no matter who they help or hurt.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed a word with Mr.
Williams ?
The Chaikmax. Yes.
Mr. CHADA\acK. I understood from you that the matters which you
read preceded what I had just read.
Mr. Williams. I was obviously in error on that, Mr. Chadwick,
because Senator Carlson just corrected me and said it came 3 pages
later. But my original position is the same, that it was part of the
original context to which he had reference when he made the statement.
Mr. Chadwick. In the next succeeding page, which I will reach in
half a minute, is the material to which you refer.
Mr. WiLLL^MS. I appreciate that.
The Chairman. Proceed with the reading,
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will start
again with the paragraph I read in order that I may know what the
continuity is here :
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, in view of Senator McClellan's statement
and his request, I would like to make it clear tliat I think that the oath which
every person in this Government takes, to protect and defend this country,
against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that oath towers far above any Presi-
dential secrecy directive. And I will continue to receive information such as I
received the otlier day. In view of Senator McClellan's statement that he feels
that it is a crime for someone to give me information about traitors in Govern-
ment, I am dutybound not to give the Senator the names of those informants.
Senator McClellan. I just want to get it straight.
Senator McCarthy. May I say that tliat will be my policy. There is no power
on earth that can change that.
Again, I want to compliment the individuals who have placed their oaths
to defend the country against enemies, and certainly Communists are enemies,
above and beyond any Presidential directive. And none of them — none of
them will be brought before any grand .iury because of any information that I
give. If any administration wants to indict me for receiving and giving the
American people information about conununism, they can just go right ahead
and do the indicting.
I now read, Mr. Chairman, from page 3918, the hearing on May
27, 1954, from volume 22.
The Chairman. Still speaking of the Army-McCarthy controversy
hearings.
Mr. Chadwick. Yes, sir. These are all applicable to that :
Senator McCarthy. I am at this point de.eply concerned to find my two Dem-
ocrat colleagues in effect notifying the 2 million people who work for this
Government that they think it is a crime for those employees to give the chair-
man of an investigating committee evidence of Communist infiltration, treason.
I think that will serve to discourage them. As far as I am concerned, I would
like to notify those 2 million Federal employees that I feel it is their duty to
give us any information which they have about graft, corruption, communism,
treason, and that there is no loyalty to a superior officer which can tower above
and beyond their loyalty to their country. I may say that I hope the day comes
when this administration notifies all Federal employees that any information
which they have about wrongdoing should be given to any congressional com-
mittee which is empowered to take it.
I now read from page 4260 of the same matter, in volume 23, with
respect to the date of May 28, 1954:
Senator McCarthy. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I have instructed a vast
number of these employees that they are dutybound to give me information
even though some little bureaucrat has stamped it "Secret" to protect himself.
88 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
From page 6796 of tlie hearing on June 15, 1954, appearing in vol-
ume 34:
Senator McCarthy. IMr. Carr, can yon think of any reason why the old Tru-
man blackout order of 1948 should be maintained in effect as of 1954?
Mr. Cark. No, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Just one further question. If our committee is to per-
form its function, it is imperative, is it not, that every blackout order, re-
gardless of whether it is Truman's or anyone else's be cancelled instanter.
Mr. Williams- Mr. Chairman
Mr. Chadwick. Excuse me. Let me read
The Chairman. Mr. Williams, let the counsel finish the reading.
Then I will recognize you.
Mr. Chadwick. Just one more line, sir :
Mr. Carr. I think that is correct, sir.
I pause.
The Chairman. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest as Mr. Chad-
wick read this last excerpt from the record, and it seems to me that
it is not at all germane to the charge which was categorized under
count 2, because, as I understand the language that has just been read,
Senator McCarthy is asking a witness as to the advisability of chang-
ing the directive of the executive branch. He is not there asking that
anyone override that directive, I do not see how that is germane to
the charge that he urged employees not to follow the directive.
The Chairman. I will say I do not have a copy of the material
read, and my attention was diverted momentarily from the reading.
So I will ask Mr. Chadwick to read it again.
Mr. Chadwick. The excerpt reads as f ollow^s :
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Carr, can you think of any reason why the old Truman
blackout order of 1948 should be maintained in effect as of 1954?
Mr. Carr. No, sir.
May I suggest that there is a special pertinency in respect to the
interrogation from the Senator addressed to Mr. Carr ?
The Chairman. Will you explain what it is?
Mr. Chadwick. My recollection is that Mr. Carr was associated
with the committee of which Mr. McCarthy was the chairman.
The Chairman. At the same time, Mr. Carr was a witness.
Mr, Williams. Won't you read the next question, Mr. Chadwick,
because that demonstrates the point tliat I make here — that the ques-
tion is rather directed to Mr. Carr asking his opinion on whether or
not it is a good thing to have that administrative or Executive order
in effect? It is not the thought of anyone to disregard it. It goes
to the wisdom of keeping the order in effect, which is entirely outside
the charge. I am sure there is no charge against Senator McCarthy
here for having an opinion that the Executive order is unwise.
The Chairman. I will ask Mr. de Furia to respond to what you
have said.
Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Chairman, the difficulty here, of course, is for
committee counsel, which were instructed to present all the testimony
in this case, whether it bore one way or bore the other way, to desig-
nate and read into the record a set of particular excerpts which would
be fair.
Now, the rule of evidence, of course, is that evidence may be com-
petent, relevant, and material, and it is admitted into the record.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 89
How much weight shall be given to any particular part of the evidence
is for the court, or, in this case, for the committee.
We suggest, Mr. Chairman, that these questions and answers shed
some light on the mental processes of Senator McCarthy with refer-
ence to this particular problem, and we feel it is evidence that the
committee should properly weigh. Now, it may be there are other
pails of this testimony, there are other sentences, there are other ques-
tions, that should be incorporated in the record.
So far as committee counsel is concerned, we have no objection to
that whatever, but we think that the committee should permit the
reading of all these excerpts in a continuous fashion, and that will
give a clear picture of what we are trying to delineate, sir.
Mr. Williams. I understand now the counsel's position. He is not
offering this as evidence in support of the charge itself that there
was an encouragement of employees
The Chairman. On the other side, it may show that the charge
is groundless, and that is in line with the policy we have adopted.
Mr. Williams. I thought the record should be clear on that, sir.
The Chairman. The matter will be received.
Proceed.
Mr. CiiADWiCK. I will now read from page 7013 of the hearing on
June 16, 1954, volume 35. Are you ready, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Mr. Chadwick (reading) :
Senator McCarthy. Senator —
addressing Senator McClellan —
may I say that the law is very clear. Back in 1912 there was a hassle pretty
much on the order of what we have today. At that time my predecessor, Sen-
ator Bob La Follette, Sr., introduced a bill which was passed. As far as I know,
it is still the law today.
It provides that every individual in civil service has the right to furnish "in-
formation to either House of Congress or to any committee or member thereof,"
and that right shall not be interfered with.
Aside from the reading, starting with the word "information" and
ending with the word "thereof" are quotation marks.
I read from page 7013 continuing :
Senator McClellan. Does that not mean legal information? That doesn't
refer to someone taking a classified document and passing it out.
Senator McCarthy. 1 think you are completely wrong, Senator. I don't
think any Government employee can deny the people the right to know what the
facts are by using a rubber stamp and stamping something "Secret."
Senator McClellan. This is a legal question.
Senator McCarthy. I don't think it is a close question at all. I don't think
it is even a close question.
I read consecutively from the same documents at page 7014 the
following :
Senator McCarthy. Senator-
addressing Senator McClellan —
may I make it very clear that there is no question about it. Regardless of who
tries to sustain me or vice vei-sa while I am chairman of the committee I will
receive all the infonnation I can get about wrongdoing in the executive branch.
I will give that information to the American people.
I read from page 7017 :
Senator McCarthy. May I say. Senator —
90 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Dirksen; I supply the reference because the record reads "Senator."
[Continuing:]
May I say. Senator, I think you have raised and covered the point so vpell it
doesn't require any answer of any kind. I personally feel that the oath v?hich
every individual takes to defend this country against all enemies, foreign or
domestic, places upon him the heavy responsibility to bring to the Congress
any information of wrongdoing where the matter is not being taken care of
properly by his superiors.
I may say, Senator, that I feel strongly that it isn't even a close question.
I think that oath to defend our country against all enemies, foreign and domestic,
towers above and beyond any loyalty you might have to the head of a bureau or
the head of a department.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. I am sorry to interrupt, sir, but I feel that in order
to place that in context, it is necessary to read the one paragraph of
expression from Senator Dirksen that appears just before that, so we
will know what position Senator McCarthy herein is adopting. Other-
wise it seems to be meaningless.
I would ask you just to read that. I will hand it over to you, if you
will.
Mr. Ciiadwick. We would like to see it, sir.
Mr. Williams. All right.
The Chairman. The Chair will rule that the statement made by
Senator Dirksen immediately preceding the information on the record,
the quotation that was just read, should be reecived.
Mr. Chadwick. I read the testimony, all the statement of Senator
Dirksen, at page 7017 of the transcript immediately preceding the
last paragraph read by me.
The Chairman. Just a moment, Mr. Chadwick. Senator Dirksen
was not testifying, as I recall it, that morning. He was merely a
member of the committee, and you referred to it as testimony.
Mr. Chadwick. I intended not to. Perhaps I did identify it as
testimony or a statement. I have not had time to go over it.
The Chairman. 1 think it is a statement. I think at one time prob-
ably he was sworn and did testify.
Mr. Chadwick. I amend anything I have said before, and quote
the following statement of Senator Dirksen, published at page 7017
of the same transcript as we have been using.
It is a question that admits of no easy solution. You might approach it
legalistieally or try to look at all sides. I am wondering about a case like this:
Let's assume that a document in a file which two men have knowledge which,
if it fell into the hands of the enemy, could be regarded as giving aid and comfort
to the enemy, which is the accepted definition for treason. Suppose 1 of the 2
should say, "I have a friend who will transmit this to the enemy." And the
other admonished him of his duty to his country, and then went to complain
to his superior about it and got no satisfactory answer, and then called it to
the attention of some Member of the House or the Senate. Legally and morally,
where do you draw the line where the security of the country is involved? It
might be a clear case of treason. Should 1 of the 2 individuals with an in-
grained sense of loyalty and devotion say, "This is treason if you give it, and
while I get no comfort from my superior by telling him that you have this in
mind, I will call up one of the Senators and tell him about if."
The question is, not what about the legal aspect, but what about the moral
aspect that is involved as well?
That is the end of the quotation as I understand, that Mr. Williams
desired to be read.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 91
The Chairman. Does that cover what you wanted, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
The Chairman. Thank you for calling it to our attention.
Mr. Chadwick. It is possible that in reading the number 7017 from
the transcript, I misquoted one of the figures. I repeat it again, I
think, for the third time, this is at page 7017 of the transcript.
Mr. Chairman, I proceed to read in order from page 7022 of the
transcript in question :
Senator Symington. Now, I understand you believe, as permanent c-bairman
of the Subcommittee on Investigations, you are an authorized person to receive
classified documents; is that right?
Senator McCarthy. I am an authorized person to receive information in regard
to any wrongdoing in the executive branch. When you say "classified docu-
ments," Mr. Symington, certainly I am not authorized to receive anything which
would divulge the names of, we will say, informants, of Army Intelligence,
anything which would in any way compromise their investigative technique,
and that. sort of thing. But as chairman of this watchdog committee, I think
that is what you call it, I feel I am in duty bound to receive any information
about wrongdoing.
1 now read from page 7026 to page 7028 of the same transcript :
Senator McCarthy. Could we now — you [Senator McClellan] and I — both
say to the public you will either be the chairman or the ranking Democrat mem-
ber, I will either be the chairman or the ranking Republican member. Can we
now say to the public, say to the people who are working in Government, that
if they know of any wrongdoing, that no phony stamp of secrecy or classification
should keep that from the Congress? Can we agree now, John, that if anyone
brings you information or me infoi'mation, if they do that in a confidential
manner, that their names will not b? made public? If we do that
Senator McClellan. I will state my position very frankly. If they do it legally,
no, their names will not be given out. I will not protect people in crime. Now,
if it is a crime, that is the issue I am ti-ying to get settled ; but if you want
to take the other position, that is your privilege. But I say, frankly, that
I will not protect people in crime against my Government. As to giving in-
formation, I don't blame you for the position you. took with respect to the
one who gave you the document, if you felt that it was legal, and you had a right
to take it. I would certainly agree with you that you were under no obligation
whatsoever to give his name. That is the position I take. Bvit I go back to the
position, at all times, that I will not condone crime. I don't know what your
position is.
Senator McCarthy. Senator, could we do this — and I don't want to pursue
this any further because we are all trying to end up these hearings — can we
agree that if anyone in Government knows of any wrongdoing, whether it is theft,
whether it is treason, whether it is Communist infiltration, that if they come to
you or if they come to me. that we will consider that they ai-e doing their duty,
and that they are not guilty of any crime, because the law says they have a right
and the dut.v" to do it? They take an oath .of office to protect this Nation. If we
could agree upon that, Senator
Senator McClellan. That is your position.
Senator McCarthy. May I finish? If we coiild agree on that, then I think that
much of this time, which might otherwise be considered wasted, would not be
wasted.
Senator McClellan. May I say to you, in answer to that, if one brings to me a
classified document, and I am of the opinion he has violated the law, then I will
be under no obligation to keep his name secret. And until you can settle that
question, I cannot follow
I now read from the same transcript at pages 7034-7035 :
Senator Symington. I am for a government of law and not men.
Now, may I continue with the questioning? As I understand, Senator, going
back to the last one, do you believe, as chairman of the Permanent Committee on
Investigations, you are an authorized person to receive classified documents; is
that right?
52461—54 7
92 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator McCarthy. First, Senator, I assume when you made that comment,
that you may have wanted me to comment on it. I would say, when you made
that profound statement that crime is wrong, I ayree witli you.
No. 2, your question is whether, as chairman of the Investigating Committee I
am entitled to receive classified documents.
Senator Symington. AVill the repoi'ter i-ead the question, please, because the
Senator did not get it?
Senator Mundt. The reporter will read the question.
(The reporter read from his notes as requested.)
Senator McCarthy. The answer to that, Mr. Symington, is that no one can
deny us information by stamping something "Classified.''
Senator Symington. I am sorry. Senator, I didn't hear you.
Senator McCarthy. I said the answer to that is that no one can deny us
information, deny the American people information, by stamping it "Classified."
Senator Symington. Regardless of whether it is top secret, Q-clearance, or
secret?
Senator IVIcCarthy. It isn't a question of the stamp on it. We should not re-
ceive or get any information which gives the names of any informants of any
investigative agency, anything that discloses their investigative technique or
anything which might endanger the Nation's security. We have not.
I read from page 7037 of the same transcript :
Senator McCarthy. Any committee which has .iurisdiction over a subject has
the right to receive the infoi-mation. The stamp on the document, I would say,
is not controlling. Any evidence of wrongdoing should be made available to the
people, especially when it has to do with treason.
Senator Symington. Regardless of instructions from his superior, anybody
can decide themselves, regardless of the classification of a document, if they
believe that it is wrong, whatever their superior does, therefore they have the
right to tell it to a congressional conmiittee, is that right?
Senator IMcCarthy. Senator, so that there is no question, let me repeat again,
anyone who has evidence of wrongdoing, has not only the right but the duty to
bring that evidence to a congressional committee.
Just one minute.
Mr, Williams. I do not think you finished that statement of Senator
McCarthy, Mr. Chadwick. There is another sentence. He was
answering.
Mr. Chadwick. I finished it as my notes have it appear, sir. If
there is another sentence, I will be very glad to have you read it.
Mr. Williams. The answer was not complete. That is all I call
your attention to.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. de Furia, will you get the copy, and let us see
what the question is ?
Mr. Williams The last sentence was this, and I am quoting :
Now, Alger Hiss, you see, if you followed your line of reasoning, Senator,
Alger Hiss would not be in jail. Alger Hiss could stamp the information about
himself secret and top secret. You just can't do that.
That is the complete answer.
The Chairman. We have no objection. That should go in.
Mr. Chadwick. I ask the chairnum's indulgence for just a moment.
Mr. Chairman, that completes the matters' which w^e desire to sub-
mit to your attention under point 2 of our notes.
The Chairman. Y(.»u mean, point 2 of the charges as the committee
decided to take them ?
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Case.
Senator Case. There are some things I should like to see placed in
the record, and I suggest that the staff get them and prepare to intro-
duce them at an appropriate time :
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 93
1. I think the record should have a copy of the oath of office which
Federal employees do take;
2. I should like to see the appropriate paragraph from the Legisla-
tive Reorganization Act which deals with the authority of what was
then designated as the Committee on Expenditures' in the Executive
Departments, and is now knoAvn as the Committee on Government
Operations ;
3. The paragraph from the rules of the Senate which recites the
jurisdiction of the committees as pertaining to the presently desig-
nated Committee on Government Operations;
4. Appropriate sections, if any are now applicable, from the act
which Senator McCarthy referred to as having been introduced by
his predecessor. Senator LaFollette :
5. Appropriate sections or paragraphs from the Espionage Act
relative to the handling of classified material ;
6. The law, or appropriate sections therefrom, relative to the powers
of employees or officers in the executive branch of the Government
to classifiy or declassify documents ; and
7. Any references in the statute, if there be such, which define the
responsibility of those who have access to classified material, with
respect to reporting to their superiors any violations of law in the
handling of such classified material.
The Chairman. Senator Case, the suggestions are all very good,
and we thank you for them.
I will say that committee counsel and staff had anticipated the
need for all that information, and rather than break up the continuity
of the testimony itself, we decided to place it immediately following
the conclusion of each one of these testimony readings. That will.be
inserted in the hearings at the appropriate points.
Senator Case. I have no objection to where.it comes in, Mr. Chair-
man. It may be that part of it will be covered in the presentation on
the next category.
The Chairjvian. I think they are all good suggestions. I just con-
ferred a moment ago with Mr. Chaclwick, and he asked the very ques-
tion that you had in mind, where they are to be put in — should we
put them in now or at the conclusion of each phase of the testimony.
I think the proper thing to do is probably to insert them there, and
it is not necessary to read them at this time, all of those sections of the
law, unless the committee members want it. If the committee mem-
bers want it, we can have that done nOw.
They are mostly legal matters. They are quotations from the stat-
utes and they will ordinarily come in under the legal phase of this
investigation.
Mr. Williams. I assume that ruling pertains also to us, Mr. Chair-
man. We have, of course, a legal position on this, but I assume from
your rulings of the other day you prefer to hear that in defense.
The Chairman. That's right. Well, you can suggest then. Even
though you put them in later, we will try to put them along with the
committee investigations at the same point in the record. Will that
be satisf actoiy ?
Mr. Williams. We will wait until we go to the defense.
The Chairman. I think unless the committ-ee objects, the proper
time to do that is after we have concluded the testimony, and then
94 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
inserts can be made following each one of these categories of the
legal matters that should be taken into consideration.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. It will not consume then the time of the committee
to receive it now. Is there any objection to that course, Senator Case?
Senator Case. No; no objection at all. I just thought we ought to
have it for the benefit of the committee as we study and review the
evidence, and also that it should be available conveniently for the con-
sideration of the Senate when the committee makes such a report.
I learned by talking with the assistant counsel, Mr. de Furia, that
at least part of what I have asked for will probably be presented in
connection with the next classification, and, of course, any part that
is presently completely there, I mean that is responsive to the infor-
mation I requested, won't need to be duplicated, but that can be checked
against the requests made, and then at the appropriate time the bal-
ance of the information submitted.
The Ch AIRMAN". I think you are correct in that statement, and I
agree. Proceed with the next category. We will pause temporarily.
(Discussion off the record.)
The Chairman. The committee will resume.
Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Chairman, we now pass to that part of the com-
mittee counsel's presentation referring to three incidents involving
receipt or use of confidential or classified documents or other confi-
dential information from the executive files, based upon the amend-
ment offered by Senator Morse, being amendment D, reading as
follows :
Received and made use of confidential information unlawfully obtained from
a document in the executive files upon which document the Federal Bureau of
Investigation had placed its highest classification ; and offered such information
to a lawfully constituted Senate committee in the form of a spurious document
vphich he falsely asserted to the subcommittee to be "a letter from the FBI."
And based also upon the amendment proposed by Senator Flanders,
No. 13, reading as follows :
He received and held a valuable classified document in possible violation of
the Espionage Act. (Revealed in the Army-McCarthy hearings that he had
improperly obtained .1. Edgar Hoover's report on subversives from the Army,
and failed to restore the document to properly authorized hands.) He permitted
the document to fall into the hands of a gossip columnist (Walter Winchell).
Mr. Chairman, we continue to read into the record excerpts of testi-
mony and statements made at the hearings before tlie Permanent Sub-
committee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Opera-
tions on various dates, beginning May 4, 1954, at the pages indicated,
asking that the committee take legislative notice thereof. We will
read into the record, first
The Chairman. You may proceed. The committee will take judi-
cial notice of the record.
Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Chairman, parts of this that I am about to read
do not appear in the printed portions of those hearings, and we have,
therefore, obtained the official transcript and will read from the
transcript where necessary.
Mr. Williams, do you have a copy of the material I am about to read ?
Mr. Williams. I am sure that I do not have it. I was not furnished
with a copy.
Mr. DE FuRL\. We will be glad to suppy that deficiency, sir.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 95
May I proceed, Mr. Chairman ?
The Chaieman. Proceed.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Page 703, volume 18. Secretary Stevens is on the
stand.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, I would like to give you a letter, one which
was written incidentally before you took office but which was in the tile, I under-
stand, all during the time you are in office — I understand it is in the file as of
today — from the FBI, pointing out the urgency in connection with certain cases,
listing the fact, for example, that Coleman had been in direct connection with
espionage agents —
there is an omission or there is a deletion — and then we continue with
the following :
Senator Jackson. May I ask this question? I am a little confused. This is a
copy of a letter that is being introduced. I would like to know how it arrived
here to the committee, where it came from, and how it came here. This is a letter
from J. Edgar Hoover to General Boiling back in 1951. How did it get into the
hands of the committee?
Mr. Jenkins. It was handed to me. Senator Jackson, by Senator McCarthy,
who is making it the basis of the cross-examination of the Secretary of the Army,
the purpose of his examination patently being this
Senator Jackson. I think it ought to be authenticated.
Mr. Jenkins. I am getting ready to. I hold now, on the basis of the copy of this
letter, and on the assumption that no guardian in interest and no counsel would
refer to a spurious manufactured document, that Senator McCarthy's cross-
examination of the Secretary with reference to this letter is wholly competent.
Then on page 704, Mr. Chairman :
Senator Jackson. Mr. Jenkins, it is a very simple matter. Did the committee
get this from the Army? Was it subpenaed? Is it from the FBI? That is the
vei-y simple question. How did it come into our possession?
Mr. Jenkins. Which committee, the McCarthy committee or this investigating
committee?
Senator Jackson. Both.
Mr. Jenkins. It was handed to me just now by Senator McCarthy; that
is all I know of it. It is a proper basis for a cross-examination. That is very
evident from reading the letter.
Senator Jackson. I understand, but it can be readily identified whether this
was a matter that was subpenaed from the Army files or whether the Army
voluntarily gave it to Senator McCarthy.
Mr. Jenkins. I can have Senator McCarthy put under oath and examine him
with reference to that particular point, in keeping with Senator Symington's
Senator Mundt. A point of order, Mr. Welch?
Mr. Welch. I respectfully suggest that that be done. I am a lawyer, and
the appearance of what purports to be a copy of a letter from J. Edgar Hoover
in 1951 addressed to some colonel ; is that riglit?
Mr. Jenkins. A major general.
Mr. Welch. The mere fact that we have an impressive looking, purported
copy of such a letter doesn't impress an oldtime lawyer. I would like to have
Mr. J. Edgar Hoover say that he wrote the letter and mailed it. Then we would
know what we were dealing with.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy.
Senator McCarthy. I want to question the Secretary as to whether or not
the original of this and other letters like it are in his file. I want to make it
clear that I have gotten neither this letter nor anything else from the FBI.
Mr. Welch. Where did it come from then?
Senator Mundt. The Chair will rule that Senator McCarthy may ask the
witness, if he cares to, whether such a letter is there in the files, and as to
other investigative agencies. The Chair holds that none of them have to dis-
close the sources of their information.
Then on page 705 again, Mr. Chairman :
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens, would you look at that letter and tell us,
No. 1, whether or not you have ever seen it or were ever notified of its contents?
I think you should read the letter before you answer it.
96 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Secretary Stevens. I would like to have the advice of counsel first as to
whether or not I am at liberty to discuss a letter from J. Edgar Hoover, because
I have grave reservations about discussing at all any letter written by Mr. J.
Edgar Hoover unless I have his specific approval. I will, therefore, ask the
chairman to give me the opportunity of securing the approval of Mr. J. Edgar
Hoover before I discuss any letter purporting to have been written my him,
because I think it is a very bad policy to discuss these things without Mr,
Hoover's knowing about it.
Senator McCarthy. Would you like to read it first?
Mr. Welch. May I add, Mr. Chairman — and I have a letter in my hand and it
is headed "Personal and Confidential Via Liaison." which seemed to me to be
rather severe words of a confidential nature. I think INlr. Stevens is quite right
in saying that this is a matter that ought to be released by J. Edgar Hoover
before we deal with it in this room.
Senator Mundt. The Chair would agree that if the letter is marked "Per-
sonal and Confidential" that the contents of the letter should not be revealed
without the consent of the Senate.
Continuing on page 706, Mr. Chairman :
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I think I would have no objection to that,
but first may I have the Secretary read the letter? I don't intend to inquire
about the contents if the Chair feels we should not do that, but I would like to
have him read the letter and tell us whether or not that is a duplicate of what
he has in his file. If he cannot tell us that, then he can examine the file and tell
us, tell us whether or not this is just one of a sequence of letters from the
FBI, complaining about the bad security setup at the Signal Corps Laboratory
and giving information on certain individuals.
Continuing on page 707 :
Senator McCarthy. May I say I have heard many ridiculous things across
the table, but to say that something dealing with the Communist activities of
men under the Secretary's command should not be seen by him is the most
ridiculous I have heard of. Of the letter here, Mr. Chairman, all I ask is that
the Secretary look at it so he can search the files and tell us whether or not
the original of that letter is in the file.
Continuing on page 708 :
Senator Symington
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. I am sorry to interrupt again, but I have to call
attention of the Chair to the fact that Mr. de Furia is reading from
the record of the Army-McCarthy hearings, and everything he is
reading of course is accurate, but I think there are many things which
he is omitting here Avhich should be placed in the record if we are
going to read this whole thing, so that all of the remarks that are made
will be in the context. Now, there are some statements by Senator
McCarthy himself Avhich have a very vital bearing on this whole
matter with regard to his attitude and disposition toward the very
letter in question. I have reference to things at page 70G of the
printed hearings, and that is where I have been trying to follow Mr.
de Furia.
It seems to me, I think the Chair has always known my position. I
have always been willing, at least throughout this week, while docu-
mentary proof went in, to stipulate that the whole record could be
considered. But since we are reading these things, I really feel that
Ave ought to read everything so that all statements made by everybody
should be in context.
Now, there, on page 706, is a statement by Senator McCarthy that he
has no disposition to have the contents of the letter disclosed
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 97
The CiiAiEMAN". Mr. Williams, I suggest as a practical matter, now,
if you will indicate the matter that you think ought to be read, we will
have someone read it, if it is not clearly off on some other subject.
Mr. Williams. I do not propose to read anything, Mr. Chairman,
that is clearly off
The Chairma^st. I assume that. But still I have to make a ruling
on that.
Mr. Williams. Mr. de Furia had gone, I understand, to page 708,
as I have tried to follow him here, in two documents.
The CiiAiiuiAx. I suggest, Mr. de Furia, that you and Mr. Wil-
liams get together for a moment and get clearly just what he has in
mind that ought to be read, and I think we can settle that in just a
moment.
Mr. De Furia. Yes.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. DE Furia. May I proceed, Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. Did you get the material that Mr. Williams thought
ought to be read ?
Mr, DE Furia. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Williams desires that an
additional sentence be read into the record, following the excerpt
which I am about to read, and we have no objection, sir.
The Chairman. Well, proceed to read it.
Mr. DE Furia. Page 708:
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I do not know the contents of the letter.
I do know it is a letter written to the Intelligence Department of the Army,
marked "Personal and Confidential" by J. Edgar Hoover.
Mr. Williams. There is a sentence following the identification by
Senator Miuidt which reads as follows :
The Chair does not imderstand that there is any disposition on the part of
anyone to make the contents of the letter public ; is that correct?
Mr. Jenkins' answer :
That is correct, as far as I am concerned.
Senator Symington says :
I don't see why we are wasting all this time on a letter that we do not intend
to publish or put in evidence.
Some of these things, I believe, Mr. Chairman, have a very direct
bearing on the overall attitude of the committee and Senator McCarthy
regarding the contents of this letter and their publication. I would
like to reserve the right to call those matters to the attention of the
committee.
The Chairman. Yes. Well, you have read them and we received the
statement you just read as part of the evidence. Thank you for calling
it to our attention.
Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Chairman, I will proceed, then, on page 708.
Senator ^McCarthy. May I ask that the letter remain in the custody of Mr.
Jenkins. That is the only copy I have.
Page 710: ^
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, one other statement. Apparently the contents
of this letter are so involved, so important, so sacred, and carry with them so
many implications even of violations of the law, that I respectfully decline Sena-
tor McCarthy's request that I personally be the custodian of this letter, and I
now, in the presence af everybody return it to Senator McCarthy.
98 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Page 712 :
Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, before you recess, let me ask one question.
I wanted to ask Senator McCarthy whether he contemplated inserting that FBI
letter in the record.
Senator McCarthy. May I say to Senator Dirksen that would be entirely up to
the Chair. I think first we should have established whether or not it was
received, whether it is in the files of the Department of the Army.
Continuing now, on page T20, part 19, May 5, 1954 :
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, yesterday afternoon the committee instructed
me to confer with J. Edgar Hoover with respect to a copy of a letter allegedly
in the files of the Intelligence Department of the Army, and to clarify that issue
this morning. I am now prepared to do so. Prior to so doing I desire to ask
the Secretary one question. * * *
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Stevens, since yesterday afternoon, have you or not through
yourself or those under your command examined the files of the Intelligence
Department at the Pentagon with special reference to the original of the letter
about which you were questioned yestei'day aftei'noon?
Secretary Stevens. Yes sir.
Mr. Jenkins. State whether or not such a letter was found in that file or any
other file.
Secretary Stevens. No, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. Now, Mr. Chairman, I desire the Secretary to stand aside
momentarily and let me clarify that issue. I desire to call as the next witness
my assistant counsel — one of my assistant counsel and a member of my staff,
Mr. Robert Collier.
Continuing, Mr. Chairman, on page 720 with the testimony of
Robert A. Collier.
Mr. Williams. Do you intend to read all of the testimony of Mr.
Collier, because it seems to me all of this goes right to the heart of this
matter ?
The Chairman. "V\^iat is the answer, Mr. de Furia ?
Mr. DE Furia. We propose to read, Mr. Chairman, I think, sir, all
of the testimony of Mr. Collier beginning on page 720, continuing
through 721> 722, 723 — there ai"e one or tw^o small deletions on 723
which I do not think are material, sir — continuing on 724 — there is one
small deletion there of some irrelevant matter — 725, 726 — another
deletion of apparently irrelevant matter — 727, two small deletions of
irrelevant matter, and 728, there is just a small part we desire to read
into the record, sir, about half of 729, a small part of 732, continuing on
734 and 735.
All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that Judge Chadwick directed us to
be careful to delete only those portions which were clearly irrelevant
and we have tried to follow the judge's instructions, sir.
The Chairman. I suggest that you follow that order, and when you
come to a deletion, if Mr. Williams will call our attention to that
deletion, if he thinks it ought to be read, please indicate it.
Mr. Williams. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
"Mr. DE Furia. Beginning again, then, on page 720, Mr. Chairman,
with your permission I will read the testimony of Robert Collier.
Mr. Jenkins. Will you please state your full name?
Mr. Collier. Robert A. Collier. e
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Collier, you are a member of my staff — assistant counsel, is
that correct?
Mr. Collier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Collier, formerly have you or not been employed by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation ?
Mr. Collier. I was, sir. I was employed from April 1, 1941, until October
26, 1951.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 99
Mr. Jenkins. You were present yesterday afternoon wlien a discussion occurred
with respect to a letter. Will you give the date of the letter, Mr. Collier? It
has escajied me.
Mr. Collier. January 26, 1951.
Mr. Jenkins. At which time the committee instructed me, either myself or by
some member of my staff, to confer personally with Mr. J. Edgar Hoover,
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Mr. CoLLiEK. I was present.
Mr. Jenkins. Were you present?
Mr. Collier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you whether or not at the close of the meeting I
assigned that task to yovi.
Mr. CoLiJER. You did, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. State whether or not pursuant to that, Mr. Collier, j'ou conferred
with Mr. Hoover personally.
Mr. Collier. I did.
Mr. Jenkins. At what time, approximately, yesterday afternoon or evening?
Mr. Collier. From approximately 5 : 15 until approximately 7 : 15.
Mr. Jenkins. During the course of your conversation with Mr. Hoover, I will
ask you whether or not he called upon you to procure and show to him a copy
of the letter about which we are talking?
Mr. Collier. Yes, sir ; he did.
Mr. Jenkins. I believe dated January
Mr. Collier. 26, 1951.
Mr. Jenkins. January 26, 1951. As a result of that request of Mr. Hoover, did
or not you go to Mr. Cohn's office and procure that copy?
Mr Collier. I did.
Mr. Jenkins. And then take it to Mr. Hoover?
Mr. Collier. I did.
Mr. Jenkins. Was it shown to him?
Mr. Collier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Collier, now at this time, without my taking the time and
still in the interest of expediting the hearing, I ask you to chronologically relate
the incidents of that conference with Mr. Hoover — what was done pursuant to
the request of the committee and what was said to you by Mr. Hoover?
Mr. Collier. Upon receiving your instructions I communicated with the FBI
and within a very short period of time obtained an appointment with Mr.
Hoover. I went to see him, having advised him of the date and the type of
letter involved. Mr. Hoover at that time informed me that they had not found
such a letter. He did have another letter of the same date. In order to be
perfectly sure that they had obtained the correct letter I returned to the Senate
Office Building and obtained from Roy Cohn in Senator McCarthy's office the
letter which I now have in my hand and which was the one produced yesterday
by Senator McCarthy. I took that letter to Mr. Hoover, and at that time he
compared this letter with the letter in his possession of the same date.
There is a short deletion there, Mr. Chairman, that I call to the
attention of Mr. Williams.
We continue on page 722 with the words, "I can now report to you."
Mr. Williams. Go ahead.
The Chairman. Do you desire the deletion read?
Mr. Williams. So far as I can see there has not been a deletion,
Mr. Chairman ; that is why we are confused.
Mr. DE Ftjria. Then I will continue, Mr. Chairman, on page 722,
and this is a continuation of the testimony of Mr. Collier :
I can now report to you that Mr. Hoover advised me that this letter is not a
carbon —
the answer is incomplete.
Mr. Jenkins. Identify the letter when you say "this letter."
Mr. Collier. This is the letter produced yesterday by Senator McCarthy. This
is not a carbon copy or a copy of any communication prepared or sent by the
FBI to General Boiling on January 26, 1951, or any other date. The FBI has
in its files a letter —
the answer is incomplete.
100 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Jenkins. Are you now stating what Mr. Hoover personally told you?
Mr. Collier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. You may proceed.
Mr. Collier. The FBI does have in its files a file copy of a letter dated Janu-
ary 26, 1951, the same date, prepared and sent hy the FBI to General Boiling,
which was a 15-page interdepartmental memorandum. A carbon copy of that
went to Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Carroll, United States Air Force.
Mr. Hoover, in comparing the two documents, advised me that the form of
the carbon copy which I have the one introduced, and the yellow copy of thfi
FBI memorandum prepared on January 26, are materially different in form.
I can recount for you, as Mr. Hoover advised me, the difference in that foi-m.
For purposes of identification, I will refer to the document introduced yesterday
as the carbon copy, and to the yellow copy in the FBI files, the 15-page memo-
randum, as the FBI original.
On the FBI original the words "Federal Bureau of Investigation" are printed
in large block letters across the top of the page. On the carbon copy the words
"Federal Bureau of Investigation" are typed. The date January 26, 1951, ap-
pears directly beneath the type "Federal Bureau of Investigation" on the carbon
copy and is in a different position on the page of the FBI original. The cai-hoa
copy has across the top "Personal and Confidential Via Liaison." The FBI
original has in the upper-hand corner the words "Via Liaison." The memo-
randum, the FBI original, is in the form of an interdepartmental memorandum.
It is not typed. It merely carries the name of the Director and the FBI. The
carbon copy would indicate a signature was to be affixed. The FBI original
was addressed to Maj. Gen. A. R. Boiling. The carbon copy is addressed to
Major General Boiling, the initials "A. R." being left out.
The same words "Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Department of the Army"
appear on both documents. In the FBI original the additional words "The
Pentagon" appear, that is not on the carbon copy, and the words "Washington.
D. C." appear on both dociunents. The FBI original has the word "from" and
the words "John Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation."
That is not on the carbon copy. The FBI original has the word "subject" and
then typed thereon "Aaron Hyman Coleman, Espionage-R." The "R" stands
Jor Russian and —
the senteiice is incomplete.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman. I am not sure I understood. You say
that is the FBI copy you are talking about?
Continuing on page 723 :
Mr. Collier. Yes. sir. In other words, the subject Aaron Coleman, Espion-
age— R, appears on the FBI original. It does not appear on the carbon copy.
This carbon copy carries the salutation "sir." The FBI original carries no
salutation.
This carbon copy is 214 pages in length. The FBI original is 15 pages in
length.
The carbon copy at the end carries the words "Sincerely yours. J. Edgar
Hoover. Director." That, of course, did not appear at the end of the FBI
original, but actually appeared in the "To" "From" relation in the beginning.
The carbon copy shows no carbon copy being sent to anyone else.
Continuing on page 723 :
Mr. Collier. I would like to pass to the Chair the diagram which I haVe
drawn which will give you a more visual reference to the two letters which
I have brought out.
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, may I make a point of order? When the
witness discusses the carbon copy, he might say the alleged carbon copy.
Senator McCarthy. A point of order. Mr. Chairman. I would like to know
who alleged it to be a carbon copy. We have never alleged it to be a carbon
copy.
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Collier, you may proceed.
Senator Mundt. Proceed. Mr. Collier.
Mr. Collier. The FBI oriuinal. on the last page thereof, shows the following:
"cc. Major General Joseph F. Carroll. * * * U. S. A. F."
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 101
Now, that is the difference in form alone. I am clistinguishinsr between
form and substance. Mr. Hoover advised me, and examined the two documents
in my presence, advised me that the substance of the original FBI 15-page
memorandum and the substance of the 2i/4-page carbon copy, contain informa-
tion relating to the same subject matter, and that in some instances exact or
identical language appears in both documents.
Other than that, Mr. Hoover feels that to further clarify it would reveal,
possibly reveal, the substance of the documents themselves.
Mr. Chairman, I am continuing on page 724 :
On that point, Mr. Hoover asked me to inform you that he respectfully refers
the committee to the Attorney General for his opinion as to whether or not
the contents can be made public in line with security requirements. And
since the language is, in some instances, identical, that would apparently go for
both documents.
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Collier, have you in detail related all of the events tran-
spiring in your conference with Mr. Hoover?
Mr. CoLLiEK. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jknkins. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mxjndt. Just one question. The Chair is not certain, and I am not
sure that you can answer this question, but did you determine whether the
FBI original was in the files of the military and available to Secretary Stevens?
Mr. Collier. I will go back to the question that Ray asked me. I did not com-
plete it. On that point I determined that the yellow copy in the FBI file, which
is the file copy, carries the following handwritten notations concerning the
original :
"Delivered to Colonel Cramer, G-2, 1-27-51, W. R. P."
Those initials are those of the liaison representative of the FBI, Wesley P.
Reynolds. The carbon copy to Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Carroll, according to a hand-
written notation on the yellow, was delivered to "Gill Levy, OSI, 1/29/51, ESS,"
the initials standing for Ed S. Sanders.
Senator Mundt. In other words, those originals were apparently delivered
in 1951?
Mr. Collier. They were, sir.
Senator Mundt. And were delivered to G-2 at that time?
Mr. Collier. The memorandum is dated January 26. It was delivered per-
sonally by Mr. Wesley P. Reynolds to Colonel Cramer on January 27, 1951. The
carbon copy was delivered personally by Mr. Ed Sanders to OSI on January
29, 1951.
Mr. Chairman, we have deleted a portion and are continuing on
page 724 with the statement or question of Senator Mundt, beginning
now, "I understand."
The Chairman. Mr. Williams, do you want that deletion read?
Mr. Williams. Wliere does that deletion appear? After 724?
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes ; from my notes, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Would you read the last thing you just read, Mr.
de Furia ?
Mr. DE FuRLA. (reading) :
Delivered personally by Mr. Ed Sanders to OSI, 1/29/51.
Now, it may be a turnover instead of a deletion.
Mr. Williams. Wliere do you resume ?
Mr. DE FuRiA (reading) :
Senator Mundt. Now I understand
Mr. Williams. Go ahead ; that's all right. There is no purpose in
putting that in.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Page 724 :
Senator Mundt. Now I understand. You were quoting Mr. Hoover then when
you say that in some instances the language was identical, that the subject
matter was identical, and that, as Mr. Hoover interprets the security laws, the
subject matter, both of the FBI copies and the copies from Senator McCarthy's
102 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
flies, because they deal with an identical subject, should not be revealed in
public, short of a ruling of the Attorney General ; is that correct?
Mr. CorxiER. I want to make it clear Mr. Hoover did not, of course, refer to
his carbon copy when he stated that, because actually this is not a carbon copy
of any FBI document. He was referring to his own document, the 15-page
memorandum, when he suggested that "I respectfully refer you to the Attorney
General for his opinion."
Senator Mundt. You are speaking for yourself then when you said that because
J. Edgar Hoover had told you in some instances the language was identical, the
subject matter was identical, that you believe that without authorization from
the Attorney General we should not discuss the subject?
Mr. CoLLiKR. That is correct. Mr. Hoover made no comment concerning this
carbon copy.
Senator McCarthy. Yes, Mr. Chairman; I would like to point out I think
this should be explored with Mr. Hoover. As far as I know, if the Chair will
refer to page 2 of the hearings where this letter lists the names of individuals
at Fort Monmouth, I understand the FBI report gives the names of informants
and information. That security information was omitted from this copy, call
it what you may, which I have. I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, and the
witness has not covered that. Apparently he can because he says he has —
I think there is a typographical error there. It should read :
Apparently he can't, because he says he has not examined the letter whether
or not all portions of this document which was—
Incompleted sentence.
Senator Mundt. That is a question which you should address to the witness,
not to the Chair. It would not be a point of order, I don't think.
Senator McCarthy. No, Mr. Chairman ; it is a request of the Chair and this
is a very, very important matter, Mr. Chairman. It is a request of the Chair
that I am making.
I am making a request that someone from the FBI be called to tell us whether
or not all of the language in the documents submitted yesterday is not identical
to the language in the documents submitted to the military, with the exception
of where we list the name of an individual and put the word after it "deroga-
tory," in same cases "not derogatory," that the FBI report actually contains
all the information. I should think we should ask Mr. Hoover whether or not
he would object to having put into the record — -this is a request I am making
of the Chair. May I finish, Mr. Chairman?
Senator Mundt. Is it a point of order?
Senator McCarthy. I am making a request of the Chair, a very important
request.
The request is this : We have a document here concerning Fort Monmouth,
Communists at Fort Monmouth, and a warning relating to them. I want to
know, Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will not now call someone from the Bureau
who can bring down the document they have, not for public exhibition, and tell
us whether or not all the language is not identical except that in this document
the individuals are merely named and all security information is left out of
this document, where, in the FBI document, the secui'ity information is included.
Continuing on page 726.
Senator McCletxan. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the docu-
ment that is presented to us here which we have not read if incomplete — if it
contains onl.v 3 pages out of the 15-page document — then the best evidence is
the document itself which is available unless it is prohibited by security reasons.
If it is prohibited by security reasons then these excerpts from it are not admis-
sible at this hearing. If it is not prohibited, under the the security order and
directive of the President, then the original document in full and complete is
the best evidence and should be produced.
I have a note of a possible deletion at this point, Mr. Williams, and
then I continue witli Senator McCarthy.
The Chairman. Is there a deletion there, Mr. Williams?
Mr. W11.LIAMS. Yes ; there is.
The Chairman. Do you want that deletion read?
Mr. Wiu.iAMS. No, sir.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 103
The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. de Fiiria.
Mr. DE FuRiA (reading) :
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, while I agree considerably with what the
Senator from Arkansas says I would say that I think it should be made clear
that we are not now requesting, and never have requested, that the security
information about these specific individuals be made a part of the record. That
is in line with the ruling of counsel, Mr. Jenkins. I do think that the language
of the letter, if this language is correct and verbatim — and I have every reason
to believe it is — that the language of the letter contains nothing of a security
nature except that it warns, admonishes those in charge of Fort Monmouth.
Senator INIundt. The letter is not admissible.
Senator McCarthy. The Chair has stated that unless the entire 1.5 pages
could be made a part of the record, none of it could. I want to disagree with
that, Mr. Chairman. I think you can delete, as there apparently was deleted
in this letter, the security reports on each specific individual. The rest of the
letter, I think, is extremely important.
Senator IMundt. The Chair is ready to rule. Unless his ruling is upset by his
colleagues on this committee, he will rule that the counsel for the committee
should seek from the Attorney General the permission suggested by Senator
McClellan which has been restated by him and by the Chair.
Then there is a deletion, Mr. Chairman. We go down to page 727.
Mr. Collier. This letter is not a copy.
The Chairman. Mr, Williams, will you check that?
Mr. Williams, How far down do you go to?
Mr. DE FuRiA. We begin again :
Mr. Collier. This letter is not a copy.
Mr. Williams. We do not desire that read.
The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. de Furia.
Mr. DE Furia. Page 727.
Mr. Collier. This letter is not a copy of any document prepared by the FBI.
Senator Jackson. Or one that he sent out?
Mr. Collier. That is correct.
Further down on page 727 :
Senator McCarthy. A point of order, Mr. Chairman. The (^hair says you
should request of Mr. Brownell permission to use the entire 15-page document.
I would like to ask the Chair t(» i-equest that if you cannot use the entire 1.5-page
document — I assume he Avill rule against you on that, because it contains the
names of informants — ask him whetlier or not we can use that portion of the
document which was submitted yesterday — find out whether this is a verbatim
copy of the FBI memorandum or letter, find if so, whether there is any objection
to the introduction of a part of the document, omitting the names, which I
sul)mitted yesterday.
Then there is a deletion and we continue with a statement or a
question by Senator ]McCarthy on the same page.
I have
Mr. Williams. Go ahead.
The CiiAiii]viAN. Did I understand you to say to proceed?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. de Furia.
Mr. DE Furia. Continuing on page 727 :
Senator McCarthy. I have. Mr. Jackson has made a completely false state-
ment. He said I represented yesterday that this came from Mr. Hoover. I
made it very clear that I had never received anything from J. Edgar Hoover,
that this was not received from Mr. Hoover. Mr. Jackson knows all that.
104 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Page 728 :
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Cliairuian, a point of order. Mr. Jackson has tried
very deliberately to create the impression that this did not come from J. Edsar
Hoover. I am sure the evidence will show that this did come from J. Edgar
Hoover, and that there has been omitted from it —
there is an interruption there.
We continue, Mr. Williams, and with the chairman's permission,
on page 729, a statement by Senator McCarthy beginning with the
words, "I very definitely have," is that all right, sir ?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Page 729 :
Senator McCarthy. I very definitely have, of the same nature as Mr. .Taclcson's.
We have a document here which, according to all the information I have, is
verbatim, a report given from the FBI. It should be in the Army file. I sent
a wire this morning to the Secretary asking for the addendum showing the
derogatory material on each individual. I think it is important for Mr. Jackson
not to maite these statements and try to create these impressions when he hasn't
seen the letter. If he will look at it, I believe he will find each and every word
is identical to the original letter, with the exception of the fact that where there
is listed the names of Foi"t Monmouth employees and the word "derogatory"
put after it in the FBI report, you will find the derogatory information and,
perhaps, the names of the informants. If that were included in this letter, Mr.
Chairman, then it would be objectionable. We would be violating the rules by
submitting it to the committee. That security information is not in the letter.
The meat of the letter is here, and I would suggest that we proceed now to exam-
ine this young man and see if he can give us this information or not.
Then we continue on page 732 with a question by Senator Symington.
The Chair3ian. Is there a deletion at that point?
Mr. DE FtJRiA. There is a deletion, Mr. Chairman, between 729 and
732.
Mr. Williams. I cannot tell by just a quick look Avhether there is
anything in those three images — perhaps you ought to give me a minute
here.
The Chairman. If you wish to take time to read it, we will cease
the progress at this point.
Mr. Williams. I want to make it clear that I know Mr. de Furia
is reading it completely fairly. It is just a question of interpretation
as to whether something should go in which might help the investi-
gation.
The Chairman. The Chair is inclined to be very liberal with respect
to anything that you think has any bearing on this matter. In other
words, we want the full and complete picture so that nothing will be
out of context.
Mr, Williams. I think he can go on.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Mr. DE Furia. Page 732 :
Senator Symington. Mr. Collier, am I correct that Mr. J. Edgar Hoover asked
you or suggested to this committee that prior to the publication of this document,
that it be — that the matter be consulted with the Attorney General of the United
States to see whether the publication of the document was in the interests of
the security of the United States?
Mr. Collier. That is correct. Senator Symington.
Then there is a deletion, Mr. Chairman, down to page 734, which
begins with a question by Mr. Welch, "Right. I think I will do no
wrong"
Mr. Williams. You may proceed, Mr. de Furia.
KEATIINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 105
Mr. DE Ftjria. With the permission of the chairman, I \vill begin
reading again on page 734 :
Mr. Welch. Right. I think I will do no wrong if I read the heading "Federal
Bureau of Investigrtion, January 26, 1951." Are you following me, sir?
Mr. Collier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Welch. Then appeal's the words which I read yesterday and which startled
me so "personal and confidential via liaison" ; is that right?
Mr. Collier. That is correct.
Mr. Welch. Then this purported carbon copy of a letter has this appearing
"Major General Boiling, Assistant Chief of Staff. G-2, Department of the Army,
Washington, D. C, Sir"; is that right?
Mr. Collier. That is correct.
Mr. Welch. Now, passing the body of it and going only to the conclusion that
appears at the bottom of it "sincerely yours," and then typed in capital letters
"J. Edgar Hoover. Director"; is that right?
Mr. Collier. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Welch. Mr. Collier, as I understand your testimony, this document that
I hold in my hand is a carbon copy of precisely nothing; is that right?
Mr. Collier. I will say that Mr. Hoover informed me that it is not a carbon
copy of a memorandum prepared or sent by the FBI.
Mr. Welch. Let us have it straight from the shoulder. So far as you know
it is a carbon copy of precisely nothing?
Mr. Collier. So far as I know, it is, yes ; but that again is a conclusion.
Mr. Welch. So far as you know, this document in this courtroom sprung
yesterday by Senator McCarthy is a perfect phony, is that right?
Mr. Collier. No, sir ; that is your conclusion. I will not draw such a con-
clusion.
Mr. Welch. You just told us it is a carbon copv of precisely nothing, haven't
you?
Mr. Collier. I have said it is not a copy of a document in the FBL file. I will
not say that it is a copy of nothing because if it was typed as a carbon there
must have been an original.
^Ir. AVelch. You would think so, but we can find no trace of an original, can
we?
Mr. Collier. Not yet.
Mr. Welch. Anywhere?
Mr. Collier. No, sir.
Mr. Welch. No, sir. If no original of this document can be found, will you
go along with me, sir, with my quaint English, when I say it is a copy of pre-
cisely nothing?
Mr. Collier. You are assuming that the original cannot be found?
Mr. Welch. That is right.
Mr. Collier. My investigation yesterday was to determine whether this was
an authentic document. 1 have made no investigation to determine whether the
original can be found or not. It may be that it can be found.
Mr. Welch, l^ou cannot find a copy of it in the FBI place, can you?
Mr. Collier. No, sir.
Mr. Welch. Now you do not on your investigation — strike it out. You are
not, as you sit in this chair, in possession of a single fact which will allow you
to believe that the document which I now show you is a carbon copy of any
existing original letter?
Mr. Collier. I made an examination yesterday to determine whether this
was a copy of a document prepared or sent by the FBI. I have not made any
examination to determine whether it is a copy of an original now in existence.
Mr. Welch. Have you any doubt, sir, that it was presented in this room as
if it were a carbon copy of a letter signed J. 'Edgar Hoover, Director, and ad-
dressed to Major General Boiling?
Mr. Collier. I was present when it was presented, and I do not now remember
the exact manner in which it was presented.
Mr. Welch. Did you have any doubt, sir, that your superior, Mr. Jenkins,
was handed a document which he believed to be a carbon copy of a letter?
Mr. Collier. That would be for Mr. Jenkins to &.\y.
Mr. Welch. Did you believe it was a carbon copy of a letter when you first
heard it in this room?
Mr. Collier. It was referred to as a copy of a letter.
Mr. Welch. Yes, sir.
106 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Collier. And I observed it. I can draw no further conclusions from it.
Mr. Welch. And now as you sit in this room, you are unable to tell us from all
the information you have been able to obtain last night V
May I have a minute, sir ?
The Chairman. You may.
(Discussion off the record.)
The Chairman. Tlie committee will now take its recess until 2 p. m.
(Whereupon, at 11 : 55 a. m., a recess was taken until 12 p. m., the
same clay.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
Present: Senators Watkins (chairman), Johuson of Colorado (vice
chairman), Stennis, Carlson, Case, and Ervin.
Also present : Senator McCarthy ; E. Wallace Chadwick, counsel to
the committee; Guy G. de Furia, assistant counsel to the committee;
John M. Jex, clerk of the committee ; John W. Wellman, staff member ;
Frank Ginsburg and Ray K. McGuire, members of Senator Watkins'
staff' on loan to the committee ; and Edward Bennett Williams, counsel
to Senator McCarthy, with his associates, Agnes A. Neill and Brent
Bozell.
The Chairman. The committee will resume session.
Counsel for the committee will resume reading the matters which
the committee takes judicial notice of in the Army-McCarthy hearing.
Mr. DE Furia. With the permission of the chairman, we desire to
resume reading at page ToG of the same source material, Page ToG :
Senator McCarthy. May I make it very clear that as far as I am concerned,
the Truman directive, or any other directive, will ijreclude me from examining
material bearing upon the security of this Nation. I am very surprised when I
find Ml'. Welch here worried about disclosing information on Communists, sitting
back and slyly approving the violation of the law insofar as eavesdropping is
concerned and monitoring. So there is no question about Mr. Collier, Mr.
Chairman, there will be no personal and confidential material where it shows
that someone is covering up and hiding Communists.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we desire to call to the attention of the com-
mittee that that statement from Senator McCarthy on page 736 is
exactly as it appears in the printed report of the testimony. Appar-
ently there was some discre})ancy. So we checked with the olHcial
transcript, volume 10, page 180-1, May 5, li)51, and find that the cor-
rect wording is as follows :
Senator McCarthy. May I make it very clear that as far as I am concerned,
the Truman directive, no directive will preclude nie from examining material
bearing upon the security of this Nation. I am very surprised when I find
Mr. Welch here worried about disclosing information on Communists, sitting
back and slyly approving the violation of the law insofar as eavesdropping is
concerned and monitoring. So there is no question about Mr. Collier, Mr. Chair-
man, there will be no personal and confidential material where it shows that
someone is covering up and hiding Communists.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman
Mr. DE Furia. And may I say, Mr. Chairman, that I called this to
the attention of Mr. Williams, and he agreed that the words are as I
just last read them.
The Chairman. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. I certainly agree that the substitution of "no" for
"any other" was a jn-oper substitution, but I do want to call attention
of the Chair to the fact that the last sentence which lias just been read
by Mr. de Furia is also inaccurate, and I think a very cursory analysis
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 107
of it would demonstrate that, because it is completely ^Yitllout sense.
Senator McCarthy advised me that he did not say this sentence :
So there is no question about Mr. Ck)llier, Mr. Chairman, there will be no
personal and confidential material where it shows that someone is covering up
and hiding Communists.
That is obviously meaningless as it is written there, and it does not
acciu'ately rej)resent what was said, because Mr. Collier, although he
was a witness on the authenticity of the documents, had nothing to
do with the issue which has been discussed there.
I do not think the change is significant or meaningful, but in the
interests of accuracy. I think I should call that to your attention.
The Chairman. Your explanation is in the record, and we will let
it stand that way. I mean by that, we will let the record stand. I
do not mean that the committee is accepting your interpretation or
the other at the moment. We will let it stand as the record shows, your
statement pointing out that it seems inconsistent and does not seem
to be the correct language.
Mr. WiLLTAiNis. What it should be is, "So that there is no question
about this subject, Mr. Chairman."
The Chairman. You read it as you think it should be, so that that
M'ill be in the record.
Mr. Williams (reading) :
So that there is no question about this subject, Mr. Chairman, there will be
no personal and confidential material where it shows tliat someone is covering
up and hiding Communists.
The Chair^ian. Proceed.
Mr. DE FuRiA. I shall continue then, Mr. Chairman, on page 737 :
Mr. Collier. Senator McCarthy, may I say that I, as assistant counsel to
Mr. Jenkins, am here to get the facts. I don't think it is our purpose nor our
right to draw conclusions in any form. I have examined this document, as I
have so testified, at the beginning and at the end, in order to establish what
kind of document it is, in order to identify it. I have not read the contents.
The part you speak of is on page 2. I feel that in view of the security
requirements I should not read that second page.
Senator IMcCarthy. I am asking you to look at the top of page 2, which,
contains nothing in regard to security, but shows that the security informa-
tion was omitted. I ask you to look at that parenthetical expression. It is
very important to establish that fact now, in view of the repeated statements
by Mr. Welch that this was a phony and that anyone had a right to believe
that all of the security information was in it.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to get at the truth of this right now.
Mr. Collier. Senator McCarthy, I feel that I must respectfully decline to
read it and determine those facts from it.
Passing on, Mr. Chairman, to page 738 :
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Collier, you say that the Director told you the
language was identical in some respects ; is that correct?
Mr. Collier. That is correct, in some respects.
Senator McCarthy. Did he tell you that the language was identical in all
respect.s
Mr. Collier. No.
Senator McCarthy. Except that this 3-page document omitted the security
reports furnished by the FBI; that other than that the document is complete?
Mr. Collier. No, sir ; he did not state it in that way.
Senator McCarthy. Well, now, what did he tell you?
Mr. Coliier. He told me that the language is identical in some respects and
that it relates to the same subject-matter ; that both documents relate to the
same subject-matter. That was as far as he felt he was entitled to go.
52461 — 54 8
108 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Page 740.
Mr. AViLLiAMS. I think there is some very pertinent language on
page 739.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Committee counsel did not think so, Mr. Chairman,
but as we have repeated, we have no objection whatever to Mr. Williams
calling to the attention of the committee any excerpts that he thinks
would further clarify this situation.
The Chairman. Do you know now, Mr. de Furia, the language that
he thinks should be significant and should be in the record ?
Mr. DE FuKiA. No, Mr. Chairman, I do not since I gave to Mr.
Williams the transcripts from which we were working, sir.
The Chairman. Mr. Williams, on your statement that you think it
is pertinent, I am going to allow you to read it.
Mr. Williams. Beginning at page 739, in the fifth paragraph of the
official printed report of this investigation :
Senator, may I ask counsel for the Army, so the Attorney General will know
the attitude of the parties to this dispute, whether counsel for the Army will
consent to having this 15-page dociiment with the security information deleted
and this document made public, so that the press and the public can compare
the two documents?
I am just reading this because the next part is necessary.
Senator McCarthy. I know. I just asked whether or not we can transmit
to the Attorney General the information that both counsel for Mr. Stevens
and Mr. Adams, as well as Senator McCarthy, request that they make the 15-page
document public if there is deleted any seciirity information, and that also we
make public the document which I have submitted after deleteing the names on
page 2.
The Chairman. Does that cover all that you think ought to be
added ?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Mr. DE Furia. Page 740 :
Mr. CoHN. Mr. Collier, is this much very clear from what you have been
able to tell us at this time : that on the date Senator McCarthy mentioned
yesterday, January 26, 1951, there was transmitted, under the name of John
Edgar Hoover, to Army Intelligence a document?
Mr. Collier. I will restate it, Mr. Cohn. Under date of .January 2G, 1951,
a 15-page FBI memorandum was prepared. The original of that memorandum
was transmitted to General Boiling's office via liason on January 27, and the
carbon copy to General Carroll's office via liaison on the 29th.
Mr. CoHN. Sir, did this memorandum go to the Army under the name of
John Edgar Hoover?
Mr. Collier. Yes, sir. On the memorandum there are the printed words
"date, to, from, and subject" : and beside the word "to" was the identification,
"IMajor General A. R. Boiling, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Department of
the Army, the Pentagon, Washington, D. C," and beside the word "from,"
"John Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation."
Mr. CoHN. You say printed. Were they not typewritten?
Mr. Collier. They were typed.
Mr. Cohn. Typewritten words, "from, John Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal
Bureau <if Investigation"?
Mr. Collier. That is correct.
Mr. CoHN. And, sir. Is it a fact, on the basis of what you can tell us now,
the subject matter of this 15-page memorandum from Mr. Hoover to the Army
on that date was Aaron Coleman, then at Fort IMonmouth, espionaging?
Mr. Collier. I will say tliis : That after the word "from" and the designa-
tion "John Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation," there
followed the word "subject" and typed thereon was "Aaron Hyman Coleman,
espionage — R". For your information the "R" stands for Russian.
Mr. CoHN. The "R" stands for Russian.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 109
Now we are passing, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, sir, to
page 741, reading as follows :
Mr. CoHN. I think we left at this point this memorandum sent under the name
of John Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI, to the Army, dated January 26, and
I believe you said delivered on January 27, sir?
Mr. Collier. That is correct.
Mr. CoHN. Bears the hearting "Aaron Coleman, espionage-R."
Mr. Collier. Aaron Hyman Coleman.
Mr. CoHN. ••Espionage-R," and you now tell us that the word "R" stands for
Russian?
Mr. Collier. Mr. Hoover told me that the "R" stands for Russian.
Mr. CoHN. So you can tell us this morning that the 15-page memorandum
was a communication from Mr. Hoover to the Army concerning Aaron Coleman,
and Russian espionage ; is that a fair statement?
Mr. Collier. That is what the "to" and the "from" read, and the subject is
Aaron Hyman Coleman, Espionage-R.
Mr. CoHN. Can you, Mr. Collier, as having been present in the room and a
member of Mr. Jenkins' staff, tell us from the testimony of yesterday on the
public record that on the day this memorandum was sent over from Mr. Hoover,
Aaron Hyman Coleman was the section head in the secret radar laboratory at
Fort Monmouth?
Mr. Collier. Mr. Cohn, I cannot tell you that of my own personal knowledge.
Mr. CoHN. I would ask the Chair, then, to take judicial or chairmanwise
notice of the public hearings of this committee of December 8, 1953, which indi-
cate that. I believe I read the job description of Mr. Coleman into the record
yesterday.
Now, sir, can you tell us whether Senator McCarthy stated with complete
accuracy yesterday that this 15-page memorandum, that this memorandum by
Mr. Hoover, was a warning to the Army that at the secret radar laboratories
;at Fort Monmouth a group of associates of Julius Rosenberg and people with
Communist records were operating on a secret link and chain radar project at
-that time?
Mr. Collier. Mr. Cohn, I cannot tell you of my own personal knowledge. I
was busy on some other matters. I was in and out of the room. I didn't hear
that complete statement. The record would speak for itself.
We now pass, Mr. Chairman, to page 749 of part 20 on May 5, 1954,
reading as follows •
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman— —
The Chairman. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Sorry, sir. Are you skipping to 749, now, did you
say?
The Chairman. Apparently so, yes, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. In order to avoid my interrupting Mr. de Furia,
which I consistently hesitate to do, I would suggest this, if I may, Mr.
Chairman. It is not necessary for us to read these parts that I feel are
germane now. So long as all the Collier testimony may be considered
of record, I would be satisfied. I cannot stop here now and read 7
pages without delaying this hearing, which I am loath to do.
The Chairman. I have not read all the Collier testimony, but on
the advice of Mr. Chadwick, I think it would be fair to rule that it all
can be made a part of the record, and it will appear as appendix No. I.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. And if in the reading Mr. de Furia or Mr. Chad-
wick do not include it all, the rest of it can be supplied so that the
record can be complete.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. DE Furia. Page 749 :
"to^
Mr. Jenkins. Are you now prepared to answer the questions asked of me by
Senator McCarthy and Mr. Cohn during the noon hour?
110 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Collier. Yes, sir.
I believe, though, that I should recount to the committee the conversation that
I had with Mr. Hoover. At the conclusion of that, of course, any questions can
be asked.
Mr. Jenkins. You are talking about the conversation between you and Mr.
Hoover during the noon hour?
Mr. Collier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. Will you now relate in detail that conversation which I think
will answer Senator McCarthy's questions?
Mr. Collier. Upon your instructions, I communicated with the FBI and ex-
pressed my desire to talk with Mr. Hoover. Within a few minutes thereafter Mr.
Hoover called me on the telephone. He stated that the letter to General Boiling
of January 2(), 1951, was classified by the word "Confidential" and he does not
feel that he has any right to declassify it or to discuss its contents. May I point
out at this time that the FBI in 1951 did not use the classifications normally
attributed to the military. That is, "Restricted," "Confidential," "Secret," and
"Top Secret." They used either the characterization "Confidential" or "Per-
sonal and Confidential." Therefore, that confidential, in Mr. Hoover's opinion
and in his statement to me, is the highest classification that can be put on a
document by the FBI.
We pass now, Mr. Chairman, to page 751 :
Mr. Collier. On page 2 following the list of names is paragraph 7, whicli
paragraph extends over to page 3 and is identical in both documents. On page 3,
the last paragraph No. S is identical in both documents. Mr. Hoover advised
that he could not make any further comment upon the substance of either of
tliese documents ; that it is still classified, and that he still respectfully referred
the committee to the Attorney General. He further advised that the original
15-page document was furnished to General Boiling's office by liaison representa-
tive on January 27 and that the original and one copy went to General Boiling's
office, and the FBI this morning determined from that office that the original
and one copy are in their files.
A carbon copy was delivered liy a liaison representative on January 29, 1951,
to the Office of Maj. Gen. .Toseph F. Carroll, United States Air Force. The FBI
this morning ascertained that that copy is presently in the files of the Air Force.
There were, in addition to those three copies, a yellow tickler copy, a white
copy, and the file copy, a yellow copy, and both of those are presently in the files
of t^he FBI.
All copies that were prepared by the FBI are present and accounted for.
We pass now, Mr. Chairman, to page 754, sir :
Mr. Collier. From the information in my possession, I will say that paragraphs
1, 2, 3, and 4 are the same; 5 is different, containing a parenthetical statement in
place of a paragraph ; 6 is the same ; and following 6 in this document before me,
the 21/4 page is a list of names taking up about a half page, whereas in the
15-page document there would have been the names and factual information
taking up many pages.
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Mr. Collier. That thereafter, following that, paragraphs 7 and 8 are the same.
Senator McCarthy. Just so we will have this one final question, is it the last
paragraph in the letter?
Mr. Collier. That is correct, sir, and was the last paragraph in the 15-page
document.
There is a deletion here, and we continue with Senator McClellan.
Senator McCleUan, on pages 754 and 755 :
Just one question, Mr. Chairman.
From what you have seen of the two documents, the one that has been pre-
sented here, and the one that you discussed with Mr. Hoover, I will ask you to
state whether it would be possible for anyone to compose or present the docu-
ment now before us except that they had access to the original document or the
original copy thereof which still remains confidential and restricted.
Mr. Collier. You are asking for my personal opinion on that?
Senator McClellan. From what you have observed of the two. Would it be
possible, except that the author of the document now before us nuist have had
access to the original or the original copy thereof?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 111
Mr. Collier. I would say that since seven of the paragraphs are identical,
that the person who wrote this document must have had access to the original,
l)ecause the identical language is contained therein.
Senator McClellan. It is still restricted so far as the FBI is concerned?
Mr. Collier. Mr. Hoover told me, and as I have stated to the committee at the
beginning of this testimony, that it carries the highest classification the Bureau
can place on a document, confidential, that he does not feel that he has any right
to declassify it.
We pass now, Mr. Chairman, to page 759 :
Mr. Jenkins. Senator McCarthy, yesterday afternoon there was presented to
me, to be read — and I desire to state that I hastily read it, Mr. Chairman, and
that my mind was completely shed of all knowledge of its contents last evening,
which perhaps may absolve me of guilty knowledge.
Senator Mundt. Immunity of which the Senator has divested himself may be
imposed upon you temporarily.
Mr. Jenkins. There was handed to me, Senator McCarthy, a letter dated
.January 26, 1951, and referred to herein as a 2i/4-page letter. As I recall, Sena-
tor, that letter was handed to me by you; is that correct?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct. It was passed along the table by me.
Mr. Jenkins. I am sorry, I did not get your last answer.
Senator McCarthy. I said, yes, it was at least passed along the table from
nie to you.
Mr. Jenkins. —
There is a deletion here, sir.
Then we continue on the same page, 759 :
Mr. Jenkins. That letter was used as a basis by me in further examination or
cross-examination of the Secretary of the Army.
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator McCarthy, you are bound to be aware of the fact that
some attack has been made upon that letter. I want to ask you at this time to
tell this committee all of your knowledge, without my asking you any specific
questions at this time, with respect to the 214 -page letter, particularly where you
obtained possession of it, when you obtained possession of it, whence it came, and
give any other knowledge that you may have pertaining to that 2% -page letter.
Senator McCarthy. First let me make it very clear, Mr. Jenkins and Mr.
Chairman, that I will not under any circumstances reveal the source of any
information which I get as chairman of the committee. One of the reasons why
I have been successful, I believe, in some extent, in exposing communism, is be-
cause the people who give me information from within the Government know
that their confidence will not be violated. It will not be violated today. There
was an attempt to get me to violate that confidence some 2 or 3 years ago, before
the Tydings committee. I want to make it very clear that I want to notify the
people who give me information that there is no way on earth that any com-
mittee, any force, can get me to violate the confidence of those people.
May I say that that is a rule which every investigative agency follows. Mr.
J. Edgar Hoover insists that no informants be disclosed and brought up in
public. They will not be brought up today, aside from that. I will give you the
information that you request, Mr. Jenkins. This came to me from someone
Avithin the Army.
As I recall the time, I do not recall the date, I recall he stated very clearly
the reason why he was .giving me this information was because he was deeply
disturbed because even through there was repeated reports from the FBI to the
effect that there was Communist infiltration, indications of espionage in the
top-secret laboratories, the radar laboratories, that nothing was being done, he
felt that his duty to his country was above any duty to any Truman directive
to the effect that he could not disclose this information.
And may I say, Mr. Chairman and counsel, now that I am on the stand it
has now been established that this is a completely accurate I'esume of all of the
information in that Federal Bureau of Investigation report, but that our in-
formant, whoever he was, was very careful not to include any security informa-
tion. I give him credit for that. I call the Chair's attention to the fact that
there is no security information in this, and I urge, Mr. Chairman, that this be
made available to the public.
112 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
No. 2, if you will pardon me, Mr. Jenkins, I know I have objected to long-
winded answers, but may I just answer you one bit further? You said to go
ahead in chronological fashion.
I received information also to the effect and, Roy, check with me on this, that
in 1949 there was a report made of the same nature from the FBI complaining
of what would appear to be apparently espionage, September 15, 1950, October
27, 1950, December 1950, again December 1950, again June 5, 1951, January 20,
1951 — I believe that is the one we have here — February 13, 1951, February 1952,
June 1952, September 1952, January 1953, April 10, 1953, April 21, 19.53, and the
young man who gave me this information was deeply disturbed, that is why he
gave it, because there was no action taken by the Army to get rid of individuals
after the FBI had given a complete report.
Mr. Collier. Senator McCarthy, I am afraid that is a conclusion you will
have to draw. I do not feel that I should. I will say that in substance the
paragraphs are as I stated. The difference in form I have also stated.
Mr. Jenkins Is that the end of your answer. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. That is the end of the answer.
Mr. Jenkins. Then do we understand, Senator McCai^thy, that you did not
get the 2^/4 -page document from the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
Senator McCarthy. I not only, Mr. Welch, did not get this from the FBI, but
let me make it clear that I
That sentence, apparently, Mr. Chairman, is incomplete.
Mr. "Williams. May we have the same ruling on Senator McCarthy's
testimony as we had a moment ago on Mr. Collier's testimony, that
all of it may be considered of record here, although Mr. de Pyuria is
reading only such portions as he has excerpted.
The Chairman. You say, all of his testimony — you mean the entire
examination of Senator McCarthy ?
Mr. Williams. All of his testimony as I read it concerns this docu-
ment. And as I do not want to burden
The Chairman. You mean all of his testimony — pardon me, so that
I get it clear — with respect to this document ?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
The Chairman. You do not mean his other testimony ?
Mr. Williams. No, just this testimony which Mr. de Furia is read-
ing from now.
The Chairman. We see no objection to it. It will be considered as
having been read into the record, and if it is not all read by Mr. de
Furia, counsel for the committee, we will have it inserted. You
indicate the beginning and the end of it ; will you do that, please ?
Mr. Williams. Thank you.
The Chairman. To be sure that it is correct by you — we want you
to check to see that it is all there.
Mr. Williams. I will have it read- — I just want to make sure that the
printed testimony of Senator McCarthy on this stage is included in
the record.
The Chairman. All right, it will be ordered printed as appendix
II to this record.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. de Furia has asked me to spell him.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Mr. Chadwick. I will turn to page 761 of the same transcript, sir.
Mr. Jenkins (to Mr. Welch). Then, Senator, yon did not get the 2i^-page
document from the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
Senator McCarthy. I did not, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. I am not going to ask you, and I did not intend to ask you the
name of the individual who gave you that document.
Senator McCarthy. I thank you.
Mr. Jenkins. But, as I do understand it, Senator McCarthy, and we are
trying to pursue this question to its logical end so that the committee may know
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 113
all of the facts, that 2i/l-page document was delivered to you by someone from
the Army?
►Senator McCarthy. Yes. I can go a step further. Mr. Jenkins.
_ Mr. Jenkins. And perhaps in the Intelligence Department? Can vou go that
far?
Senator McCarthy. An officer in the Intelligence Department.
'Mr. Jenkins. Very well.
Senator, when was that letter, that 2%-page document delivered to you?
Senator McCarthy. I will have to consult with counsel on that, if I may.
I\Ir. Jenkins. Very well : you are entitled to that.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, I would have difficulty giving you an exact
date, but it was early last sprins', roughly a year ago. Counsel says he thinks
May or .Tune, and Mr. Carr says he thinks also, perhaps, in June. I think it
was earlier. I think we had it before Mr. CaiT came with us ; is that right,
Frank?
Mr. Jenkins. AVhen it was delivered to you last spring, approximately a year
ago, which would be in early May 1953, were you then advised. Senator, that
it was not a coiiy of an — an exact copy — of the 15-pag9 document in the files
of the Intelligence Department, but a condensation of it, as we would call it?
That is, what information did you receive at that time with respect to this
2 M -page document in relation to a 15-page document, if you had any such
information?
Senator McCarthy. May I say, Mr. Jenkins, as I recall, I discussed with
the officer who delivered this the fact that the document itself shows that
there has been deleted security information. That will appear on page 2 —
Then going to page 763 of the same :
Senator McClkllan. Just one question. Did I understand you to say this
document was delivered to you as chaimian of the committee?
Senator McCarthy. I was chairman. In what capacity it was being delivered
I don't know. I was chairman of the committee.
Senator McClellan. I ask you now, do you regard it as a committee docu-
ment or as a personal document? What is it?
Senator McCarthy. It is available to the committee.
From pages 763 and 764 :
Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman.
Senator INIcCarthy, is it unusual or extraordinary for confidential documents
of this nature to come to you either as chairman of the Senate Permanent
Investigating Committee or as an individual Senator?
Senator McCarthy. It is a daily and nightly occurrence for me to receive
information from people in Government in regard to Communist infiltration.
From page 764 of the same :
Senator Jackson. Was it delivered to you personally or to any one of the
staff initially?
Senator McCarthy. There may have been some member of the staff present;
I don't know. The letter came into my possession personally.
Senator Jackson. You do not know whether your informant gave it to you
directly or a member of the staff' received it first and then gave it to you?
Senator McCarthy. I am reasonably certain. Scoop, that this was handed to
me personally. Keep in mind that I talk to so many people every day that I just
cannot remember who handed me something a year ago.
Senator Jackson. I mean, to your best knowledge and belief it came to you
personally and not through the staff?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
At page 768 :
Mr. Welch. Will you tell us where you were when you got it?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. Welch. Were you in Washington?
Senator McCarthy. The answer was I would not tell you, I would not give
you any information which would allow you to identify my informant. That has
been the rule of this committee.
Mr. Welch. How soon after you got it did you show it to anyone?
Senator McCarthy. I don't remember.
114 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Welch. To whom did you first show it?
Senator McCarthy. I don't recall.
Mr. Welch. Can you think of the name of anyone to whom you showed it?
Senator McCarthy, I assume that it was passed on to my stafE, most likely.
Page 769 :
Mr. Welch. Mr. Senator, when it was handed to you, was it put in the files of
the subcommittee?
Senator McCarthy. I assume it was.
Mr. Welch. Like any other paper?
Senator McCarthy. Like any other of a thousand of papers.
Mr. Welch. And it became a document belonging to the subcommittee?
Senator McCarthy. It now belongs to the subcommittee.
From pages 819, 820, and 821 of the hearing on May 6, 1954, testi-
mony of Robert A. Collier :
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask at this time that my assistant
counsel, Mr. Prewitt, interrogate the witness.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Tom Prewitt will take over as counsel for the committee
and interrogate Mr. Collier.
Mr. Prewitt. Mr. Collier, at the iustance of the committee, did you, on yester-
day, deliver the 2i/4-page reported copy of a memorandum from the Federal
Bureau of Investigation to the oflice of Mr. Herbert Brownell, with the request
that he give this committee an opinion on the question of whether or not that
information could be released publicly?
IVIr. Collier. I did. At approximately 5 :15 yesterday afternoon, I delivered
a letter from Senator Mundt together with the 2i/i-page document, which I per-
sonally handed to Mr. Robert Minor, assistant to the Deputy Attorney General.
Mr. Prewitt. Do you have an opinion in writing from Mr. Brownell?
Mr. Collier. I do. It was delivered at approximately 12 o'clock today.
Mr. Prewitt. Will you read it?
Mr. Collier. This is a letter
Senator McCarthy. I wonder if we can fii'st have Mr. Mundt's letter, so we can
understand what the answer is.
Senator Mundt. You may read my letter of transmittal first.
Mr. Collier. Mr. Prewitt has that.
Mr. Prewitt. This letter is dated May 5, 1954, and addressed to the Honorable
Herbert Brownell, Jr., United States Attorney General, Department of Justice,
AVashington, D. C. :
"As chairman of the Special Investigating Subcommittee and by its direction,
I request your opinion as to whether or not the contents or any part thereof
can be released by this committee to the public of the following documents :
"1. A ir)-page interdepartmental memorandum elated January 26, 1951, from
John Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, to Maj. Gen.
A. R. Boiling, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Department of the Army, the
Pentagon, Washington, D. C. — Subject : Aaron Coleman, Espionage — R. This
document Avas classified 'Confidential.'
"2. A 214-page letter dated January 26, 1951, from J. Edgar Ploover, Director,
to Major General Boiling, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Department of the Army,
Washington, D. C. This document was classified 'Personal and Confidential.'
This document was furnished to the committee on May 4 by Senator .Joseph R.
McCarthy and is being furnished to you for your perusal by the bearer of this
letter, ]Mr. Robert A. Collier, assistant counsel of the Special Investigating
Subcommittee.
'"Your expeditious attention to this matter will indeed be appreciated.
"With best wishes and kindest personal regards, I am,
"Cordinally yours,
"(Signed) Karl E. Mundt."
Mr. Collier. The communication from the Attorney General is on the letter-
head of the Oflice of the Attorney General, Washington, D. C, dated May 6,
1954:
Hon. Karl E. Mundt,
Viiited States Senate, Washington, D. C.
My Dear Senator : Upon receipt of your letter of May 5, I inquired concerning
the 15-page memorandum referred to therein, and was advised that under date
of January 26, 19.51, a 15-page memorandum was addressed to Maj. Gen. A. R.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 115
Boiling, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, with a copy to Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Carroll,
Director, Special Investigations, the Inspector General, USAF, by Mr. J. Edgar
Hoover, Director of the FBI. This memorandum is classified "Confidential,"
which means, under existing law that its contents must not be disclosed "in,
the best interests of the national security." It was delivered by hand to the
appropriate officials of the Air Force and the Army.
I inquired further to determine whether or not the Federal Bureavi of Inves-
tigation or any person on its behalf had ever authorized the delivery of this
memorandum to others, and was advised that the FBI has never released or
authorized the release of the memorandum or any portion thereof to anyone
except as above stated.
The question as to whether or not this memorandum can now be declassified
and made public has been presented to me by your letter.
The FBI has a duty as the principal intelligence agency of the Government,
operating within the United States and Territorial possesions, to call to the
attention of other agencies of the executive branch of Government information
of interest to such agencies. This is particularly true insofar as the investigative
and intelligence branches of the armed services are concerned. The Director
of the FBI and other intelligence and investigative agencies must be free to
exchange information, one with the other, without the fear that information of
a classified nature will be made public. The FBI with its enormous responsi-
bilities to the President, the Congress, and the American public must have the
fullest cooperation from all persons who possess information bearing upon the
internal security of our country. This it cannot have unless it is in a position
to give assurances that its files will be kept confidential.
It has been the consistent and I believe wise policy of the Department of
Justice, therefore, not to disclose the contents of FBI reports or memoranda or
any part thereof. The only exception has been in the rare case where the
information contained therein has been fully testified to by a witness or wit-
nesses in court or before congressional committees under oath, so that no element
of disclosure was in fact involved, and where no confidential sources of informa-
tion or investigative techniques would be disclosed.
The 15-page memorandum, if made public, would reveal confidential sources
of information on the FBI, and confidential investigative techniques. It con-
tains the names of persons against whom no derogatory material has been
shown and unevaluated data as to others. Its publication would be harmful
to matters now under consideration.
I must therefore conclude that the memorandum should not be declassified
and that publication of the memorandum would be contrary to the public
interest.
Your second request refers to a 2%-i)i\ge documents, dated January 26, 1951,
a copy of which was delivered to us by Mr. Robert A. Collier, assistant counsel
of your subcommittee, and which is returned herewith. This documents pur-
ports to be a copy of a letter with a salutation : "Ma.lor General Boiling, Assist-
ant Chief of Staff, G-2, Department of the Army, Washington, D. C, Sir :" It
is marked "Personal and Confidential." It closes with the following type-
written signature : "Sincerely yours, J. Edgar Hoover, Director."
Mr. Hoover has examined the document and has advised me that he never
wrote any such letter. However, this document does contain phraseology which
is identical with words and paragraphs with those contained in the 15-page
memorandum referred to previously. In addition this docmnents contains the
listing of names identical with names contained in the 15-page memorandum.
After these names there appear the words "derogatory" or "no derogatory"
which were not contained in the original memorandum. Although the 214-page
document purports to be a letter signed by J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the
FBI, these evaluations of "derogatory" or "no derogatory" were not made by
him nor by anyone on his behalf. In fact, there is nothing contained in the
2% -page document to show who made such evaluations. In view of these facts
and because the document constitutes an unauthorized use of information which
is classified as "confidential," and for the reasons previously stated, it is my
opinion that it should not be made public.
Sincerely yours,
Herbert Brownell, Jr.,
Attorney General.
There is a reference to the fact that the letter is marked "Exhibit
No. 16."
116 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
From pages 3080 to 3083 of the stenographic transcript, volume
18 of the hearing on Ma}^ 17, 1954 :
Senator Mundt. We will begin tliis morning by annoxuicing that the Chair has
received liis reply from the Attorney General to a letter which was written
some time ago in connection with the so-called .SVt-page document, and in the
interest of time I shall not read my letter of May 10 in its entirety. It is a
little long. Btit I will ask to include it in the record as an exhibit appropriately
marked and I shall read the significant passages.
(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 18" and received in evi-
dence. )
Senator Mundt. For the purposes of recapitulation, you will recall that this
dealt with the 214-page document — by the way, it has been returned, and I will
ask that it be passed down to Senator McCarthy, since it is his property — -
in which, paraphrasing my letter, I asked the Attorney General whether his
admonition against publishing or releasing the contents of that document in
toto held for all portions and all paragraphs. The significant part of my letter
after reviewing my previous interrogatory of the Attorney General, was this :
"Would it be possilile for you to authorize or clear for use as an exhibit be-
fore our subcommittee any of the paragraphs or portions of the enclosed 214-
page document? It has occurred to some members of the subcommittee that
the fact that the 214,-page document may contain the names of some of those
still under investigation or being used as informants could he the l»asis on which
you requested the contents be not divulged. If so, perhaps such names could
be deleted and other portions of the document released.
"Will you please write me your reaction to this request, and if you feel it is
against the best security interests of the United States to permit any portion
at all of the 2H-page document to be used as an exhibit before our subcom-
mittee, I am sure it will be helpful to us if you will give your specific reasons
for making such a determination We, of course, do not want to make public
anything which is deemed to be injurious to our national interest to disclose,
but in our search for truth in the current liearings, on the other hand, we would
like to have availnble for our consideration every fact and document which can
be included in our record without doing violence to essential security con-
siderations.
"We will appreciate a reply as soon as possible."
Next are the words, still Senator Mundt :
I talked about the enclosures.
I have here a reply from the Attorney General :
May 13, 1954.
Hon. Karl E. Mitndt,
United States Senate, Washinfiton, D. C:
In reply to your letter of May 10, 1954, for the reasons set forth in my letter
of May 6, it is my opinion that it would not be in the public interest to release the
214 -page document which purports to be a copy of a letter or to release any part
thereof.
As I pointed out. the document is not authentic in that no such letter was
written by Mr. J. Edgar Hoover. The portions of this document which were
taken verbatim from the 15-page interdepartmental FBI memorandum dated
January 26, 1951, by an unidentified person are classified "confidential" by law;
this means they must not be disclosed "in the best interests of the national
security."
If the "confidential" classification of the FBI reports and memoranda is not
respected, serious and irreparable harm will be done to the FBI. This prin-
ciple applies with equal force to the release of portions of the FBI memo-
randum which are contained in the 214-page document as well as to the memo-
randum as a whole.
The Department has under consideration at the present time possible viola-
tions of criminal law as a result of the referral of the transcript of the hearings
to the Department by your subconunittee. The 2i4-page document is involved,
and its declassification at this time might affect adversely or even defeat the
proper prosecution of offenses involved in its preparation and dis.semination.
This consideration confirms my original opinion that it would not be in the
public interest to declassify the document or any part of it at the present time.
Sincerely,
Herbert Brownell, Jr.,
Attorney General.
SHEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 117
Mr. Mundt again in his own words :
I ask that my letter in full, and the Attorney General's letter in full, be en-
tered at this point in the record, and properly identified.
And in parentheses :
The letter from the Attorney General was marked "Exhibit No. 19" and re-
ceived in evidence.
End of parentheses.
Again reverting to the stenographic transcript, this time volume No.
34, pages 6722 and 6723 :
Senator Jackson. All right, we won't go into any further detail about that.
When did you first see the 2Vt-page FBI document?
Mr. Cakr. I believe — I believe that I first saw the two and a— what is it, 21^-
page document? — in this courtroom, or just before that, just the day that Mr.
McCarthy lianded it up here, or attempted to have the Chair read it.
Senator .Jackson. Tou had never seen it before?
Mr. Carr. I had never seen it. I knew about it, however.
Senator Jackson. So it was never in the files?
Mr. Carr. It was never in the files downstairs ; no, sir.
Senator Jackson. How could you conduct this investigation? You are the
staff director, and if yoii hadn't seen it until the day you came in, how could
you have conducted this investigation without having seen that document?
Mr. Carr. I didn't have to see the document, sir. I know what was in it.
Further in the stenographic testimony of the same hearing for June
17, vohime 36, at pages 7270 and 7271 :
Mr. Welch. Where do you keep the documents like the 2%-page document that
we had here?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Welch, I was of the opinion that was down in the
committee files. However, I heard 'Slv. Carr testify to the effect that it was not :
that it was in my office. I will take Mr. Carr's testimony on that, because I
am sure he is right in that.
I\Ir. Welch. That you would consider an important document; would you not?
Senator McCarthy. Important, but not important beyond many documents
•we get.
Mr. Welch. You wouldn't allow it to lie around carelessly, would you, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. It did not lie around carelessly.
]Mr. Welch. I want to ask about that. Have you a safe in your office?
Senator McCarthy. I have.
Mr. Welch. Was that document kept in that safe?
Senator McCarthy. Apparently it was, Mr. Welch. May I say, I wasn't aware
■of that until I heard Mr. Carr testify to that, and I checised with Mrs. DriscoU
and she tells me that document was in my safe rather than in the committee
files.
Mr. Welch. In your safe, sir?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Welch. May I ask who has access to your safe; others than you, or not?
Senator McCarthy. My administrative assistant has access. Mrs. Driscoll
has. I, of course, have. I don't think anyone else has the combination.
Mr. Chairman, that conchides the factual matter in connection with
the subject matter to which we have been directing our attention.
My brief, of course, contains some memorandums of law, but I have
already made a request to you that this material might be presented by
the staff in carefully prepared and revised documentary form, rather
than as it is in our briefs, which we will do, giving a copy of that
paper to Mr. Williams. And we hope that it may be made part of the
record without the necessity of needing it here.
Mr. Williams. May we have that today, Mr. Chadwick?
Mr. Chadwick. I do not think I can supply it today.
Mr. Williams. All right.
118 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The Chairman, I understand, Mr. Cliadwick, it will probably be
next Tuesday before you can give that material,
Mr, Chadwick. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And I assume that you will want some additional
time in which to prepare such items with respect to the law as you have
already indicated you want for the record ?
Mr, Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the fact that it is a long
and laborious job to prepare these briefs, and to carefully check the
authorities and the precedents and for that reason I think that any
reasonable time should be granted either counsel for the committee
or counsel for Mr. McCarthy in which to do that job.
Mr. Chadwick. Such briefs of the law will contain all reference
to all Federal directives that we identify as having application. We
might read them here, and we may read them when we file our report,
if we deem it fit, but I suggest that we better not read it now until
we have had a chance to review that situation, Mr. Chairman,
Mr. Williams. If we could have even a rough draft of that prior
to Tuesday, I think that we might be able to file our brief by Tuesday
or Wednesday in reply thereto.
I assume that you have reference to those legal matters that Senator
Case called to our attention this morning ?
Mr, Chadwick, Yes, sir ; matters that we have heretofore ref eiTed
to at the close of the reading of the brief on various points. And
that is a reasonable request. We can give it to you in the rough with-
out the extension of material, because we will give you these citations
in support thereof.
Mr. Williams. Thank you.
Senator Carlson. May I ask if the request that Senator Case made
this morning contained a request for Executive Order No. 10450,
which deals with the security requirements of Government employ-
ment and, also, the Presidential directive of March 13, 1948, which
deals w^ith the confidential status of employees. It seems to me that
should be a part of these hearings, if it is not already.
Mr. Chadwick. Yes, sir; we quite agree. It will be made a part
of that.
The Chairman. I take it that counsel is going to search for all of
the precedents, all of the sections of the code, all of the rules of the
Senate or any interpretations thereof that have anything to do with
this matter.
Mr. Chadwick. We will do our very best, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. That includes the Presidential directives, and any-
thing of a legal nature that may throw some light on these contro-
versies, that is, on these issues raised in this hearing?
Mr. Chadwick. That will be our purpose, and it is our under-
standing of our instructions.
The Chairman. Is there anything further that you have to offer
in a factual way at this time?
Mr. Chadwick. No, sir.
The Chairman. This is rather early in the day. The committee
has been looking for a time when it could hold a rather extended execu-
tive session. 'There are matters of law to be cleared up and matters
of investigation yet to be finished and to receive reports on some
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 119
tha,t are underway, so that the committee appreciates getting the
rest of the afternoon to work out such matters, in which to hold such
a meeting.
As I said yesterday, some members of the committee at least will
attend the funeral tomorrow in South Carolina, and that will make
it impossible for us to go ahead with the hearing.
The hearings will resume next Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock, and
in this same room.
Mr. Williams. Do you want us at this meeting ?
The Chairman. We have some internal work with respect to the
committee's activities. If you have anything to suggest, Mr. Wil-
liams, either you or Senator McCarthy, that will be helpful in getting
all of the facts in the record — in getting all of the law pertinent to this
matter in the record — we would be very glad to meet with you for that
purpose.
We do not have any other objective in mind, however.
Mr. WiLLLVMS. Thank you.
The Chairman. The committee will now stand in recess until next
Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 3 : 10 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene
at 10 a. m., Tuesday, September 7, 1954.)
HEAEINGS ON SENATE EESOLUTION 301
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1954
United States Senate,
Select Committee To Study Censure Charges
Pursuant to Senate Order on Senate Resolution 301,
Washrngtan^ D. C.
The select committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10: 14 a. m., in the
caucns room, 318 Senate Office Building, Senator Arthur V. Watkins
(chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Watkins (chairman), Johnson (vice chairman),
Carlson, Case, Stennis, and Ervin.
Also present: Senator McCarthy; E. Wallace Chadwick, counsel
to the committee ; Guy G. de Furia, assistant counsel to the committee;
John M. Jex, clerk of the committee : John W. Wellman, staff mem-
ber; Frank Ginsberg and Ray R. McGuire. members of Senator Wat-
kins' staff on loan to the committee : and Edward Bennett Williams,
counsel to Senator McCarthy, with his associates, Agnes A. Neill and
Brent Bozell.
The Chairman. The committee will resume session.
Confirming a committee purpose, which I mentioned at a pre\dous
hearing, judicial or legislative notice will be taken by this committee
of the report of the Henning-Hayden-Hendrickson Subcommittee on
Privileges and Elections of the Committee on Rules and Adminis-
tration relating to the investigation directed against Senators Joseph
R. McCarthy and William Benton, pursuant to Senate Resolution
187 and Senate Resolution 304, in the 82d Congress; for the limited
purpose of showing the nature (but not to establish the truth or
falsity) of the charges before that subcommittee, as bearing upon the
question of jurisdiction of that subcommittee.
That report will be made a part of this record, and will appear as
appendix No. III.
Tliis committee will also take legislative notice of the letter from
the President to the Secretary of defense, dated May 17, 1954, and of
the memorandum of law from the Attorney General to the President,
accompanying the same. The counsel will "offer said letter and memo-
randum in evidence by copies thereof, and will read the letter into
the record. The memorandum will be marked as an exhibit and
included as part of the record without reading.
You may proceed, Mr. Chadwick.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence a letter of the
President of the United States to the Secretary of Defense, dated
May 17, 1*954, which I will read for the purposes and into the record
as you direct.
121
122 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The Chairman. The Chair has already directed that you read it
into the record. I have already taken judicial notice of that docu-
ment. You may proceed, Mr. Chadwick.
Mr. Chadwick. The letter reads as follows :
Dear Mr. Seceetary : It has long been recognized that to assist the Con-
gress in achieving its legislative purposes every executive department or agency
must, upon the request of a congressional committee, expeditiously furnish
Information relating to any matter within the jurisdiction of the conniiittee,
with certain historical exceptions — some of which are pointed out in the at-
tached memorandum from the Attorney General. This administration has been
and will continue to be diligent in following this principle. However, it is essen-
tial to the successful working of our system that the persons entrusted with
power in any 1 of the 3 great branches of Government shall not encroacli upon the
authority confided to the others. The ultimate responsibility for the conduct of
the executive branch rests with the President.
Within this constitutional framework each branch should cooperate fully
with each other for the common good. However, throughout our history the
President has withheld information whenever he found that what was sought
was confidential or its disclosure would be incompatible with the public interest
or jeopardize the safety of the Nation.
Because it is essential to efficient and effective administration that employees
of the executive branch to be in a position to be completely candid in advising
with each other on official matters, and because it is not in the public interest
that any of their conversations or communications, or any documents or repro-
ductions, concerning such advice be disclosed, you will instruct employees of
your Department that in all of their appearances before the subcommittee of the
Senate Committee on Government Operations regarding the inquiry now before
if they are not to testify to any such conversations or communications or to pro-
duce any such documents or reproductions. This principle must be maintained
regardless of who would be benefited by such disclosures.
i direct this action so as to maintain the proper separation of powers between
the executive and legislative branches of the Government in accordance with
my responsibilities and duties under the Constitution. This separation is vital
to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power by any branch of the Government.
By this action I am not in any way restricting the testimony of such witnesses
as to what occurred regarding any matters where the communication was directly
between any of the principals in the controversy within the executive branch
on the one hand and a member of the subcommittee or its staff on the other.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Dwight D. Eisenhower.
This letter is addressed to the honorable the Secretary of Defense,
Washinjrton, D. C. This letter was dated May 17, 1954.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. I understood that order as read by Mr. Chadwick
pertains solely and exclusively to the committee of which Senator
Mundt was chairman, which functioned earlier this year.
Now, I was wonderino; what relative purpose this introduction had
here. I thought Mr. Chadwick might help us on that.
The Chairman. Mr. Chadwick.
Mr. Chadwick. As I catch the question, it is the limitation on a
certain matter to prove a certain case. Mr. Williams, I think the docu-
ment speaks for itself.
Mr. Williams. It does to me, Mr. Chadwick. It speaks very clearly
that it has applicability only to the Mundt committee. I wondered
what its purpose was in this hearing.
Mr. Chadwick. The purpose is to supplement the other testimony
which has been read as evidence heretofore or which may be adduced
hereafter with reference to the utilization, use, transmission, disclosure
of classified documents or other communications, interdepartmental
connnunications which are confidential under this directive.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 123
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. Senator Case.
Senator Case. Will counsel state whether or not this letter from the
President went to the so-called Mundt committee before or after, and
was it written or issued by the President before or after the alleged
invitation by Senator McCarthy to Government employees with re-
spect to the furnishing of certain information ?
Mr. Chadw^ck. My best recollection, sir, is that it followed that,
that it was immediately contemporaneous with it. Whether it was
immediately before or immediately after, I cannot say without refer-
ence to the record.
Senator Case. The dates, I assume, do appear in the record.
Mr. Chadwick. They do, sir. I call the attention of the stenog-
i-apher, and ask him to mark as a committee exhibit a memorandum
10 pages in length to the President from the Attorney General which
was attached to and in support of the Presidential order which I have
just read into the record. I ask him to advise me what number to give
to the document. We understand that it is exhibit No. 3. It is offered
in evidence as part of the record in this case.
The Chairman. The Chair has already ruled the exhibit will be
marked as a memorandum and be included as a part of the record at
this point.
Memorandum
For : The President.
From : The Attorney General.
One of the chief merits of the American system of written constitutional law
is tliat all the powers entrusted to the Government are divided into three sreat
departments, the executive, the le?;islative, and the judicial. It is essential to
the successful working of this system that the persons entrusted with power
in any one of these branches shall not be permitted to encroach upon the powers
confided to the others, but that each shall be limited to the exercise of tlie powers
•appropriate to its own department and no other. The doctrine of separation of
powers was adopted to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power and to save the
people from autocracy.
This fundamental principle was fully recognized by our first President, George
Washington, as early as 1796 when he said: "* * * it is essential to the due
administration of the Government that the boundaries fixed by the Constitution
between tlie different departments should be preserved * * *." In his Fare-
well Address, President Washington again cautioned strongly against the danger
of encroachment by one department into the domain of another as leading to
despotism. This principle has received steadfast adherence throughout the
many years of our history and growth. More than ever, it is our duty today to
heed these words if our country is to retain its place as a leader among the
free nations of the world.
For over 150 years — almost from the time tliat the American form of govern-
ment was created by the adoption of the Constitution — our Presidents have
established, by precedent, that they and members of their Cabinet and other
heads of executive departments have an undoubted privilege and discretion to
keep confidential, in the pulilic interest, papers and information which require
secrecy. American history abounds in countless ilUistrations of the refusal, on
occasion, by the President and heads of d partments to furnish papers to Con-
gress, or its committees, for reasons of pulDlic policy. The messages of our past
Presidents reveal that almost every one of them found it necessary to inform
Congress of his constitutional duty to execute the office of President, and, in
furtherance of that duty, to withhold informatit)n and papers for the public good.
Nor are the instances lacking where the aid of a court was sought in vain to
obtain information or papers from a President and the heads of departments.
Courts have uniformly held that the President and the heads of departments
have an uncontrolled discretion to withhold the information and papers in the
public interest ; they will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion, and
52461—54 9
124 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
that Congress has not the power, as one of the three great branches of the
Government, to subject the executive branch to its will any more than the execu-
tive branch may impose its unrestrained will upon the Congress.
PRESIDENT Washington's administration
In March 1792, the House of Representatives passed the following resolution :
''Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the causes of the
failure of the late expedition under Major General St. Clair ; and that the said
committee be empowered to call for such persons, papers, and records, as may be
necessary to assist their inquiries." (3 Annals of Congress, p. 493.)
This was the first time that a committee of Congress was appointed to look
into a matter which involved the executive branch of the Government. The
expedition of General St. Clair was under the direction of the Secretary of War.
The expenditures connected therewith came under the Secretary of the Treasury.
The House based its right to investigate on its control of the expenditures of
public moneys. It appears that the Secretaries of War and the Treasury ap-
peared before the committee. However when the committee was bold enough f o
ask the President for the papers pertaining to the General St. Clair campaign,
President Washington called a meeting of his Cabinet (Binkley, President and
Congress pp. 40-41 ) .
Thomas Jefferson, as Secretary of State, reports what took place at that
meeting. Besides Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Henry Knox, Secretary of
War, and Edmond Randolph, the Attorney General, were present. The com-
mittee had first written to Knox for the original letters, instructions, etc., to
General St. Clair. President Washington stated that he had called his Cabinet
members together, because it was the first example of a demand on the Executive
for papers, and he wished that so far as it should become a precedent, it should
be rightly conducted. The President readily admitted that he did not doubt the
propriety of what the House was doing, but he could conceive that there might
be papers of so secret a nature, that they ought not to be given up. Washington
and his Cabinet came to the unanimous conclusion :
"First, that the House was an inquest, and therefore might institute inquiries.
Second, that it might call for papers generally. Third, that the Executive ought
to communicate such papers as the public good would permit, and ought to refuse
those, the disclosure of which would injure the public : consequently were to
exercise a discretion. Fourth, that neither the committee nor House had a right
to call on the Head of a Department, who and whose papers were under the
President alone ; but that the committee should instruct their chairman to move
the House to address the President."
The precedent thus set by our first President and his Cabinet was followed in
1796, when President Washington was presented with a resolution of the House
of Representatives which requested him to lay before the House a copy of the
instructions to the Minister of the United States who negotiated the treaty with
the King of Great Britain, together with the correspondence and documents rela-
tive to that treaty. Apparently it was necessary to implement the treaty with
an appropriation which the House was called upon to vote. The House insisted on
its right to the papers requested, as a condition to appropriating the required
funds. (President and Congress, Wilfred E. Binkley (1947), p. 44).
President Washington's classic reply was, in part, as follows :
"I trust that no part of my conduct has ever indicated a disposition to withhold
any information which the Constitution has enjoined upon the President as a
duty to give, or which could be required of him by either House of Congress as a
right ; and with truth I affirm that it has been, as it will continue to be while I
have the honor to preside in the Government, my constant endeavor to harmonize
with the other branches thereof so far as the trust delegated to me by the people
of the United States and my sense of the obligation it imposes to 'preserve, pro-
tect, and defend the Constitution' will permit" (Richardson's Messages and
Papers of the Presidents, vol. 1, p. 194).
Washington then went on to discuss the secrecy required in negotiations with
foreign governments, and cited that as a reason for vesting the power of making
treaties in the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. He felt
that to admit the House of Representatives into the treatymaking power, by
reason of its constitutional duty to appropriate moneys to carry out a treaty,
would be to establish a dangerous precedent. He closed his message to the
House as follows :
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 125
"As, therefore, it is perfectly clear to my understanding that the assent of the
House of Representatives is not necessary to the validity of a treaty ; * * * and
as it is essential to the due administration of the Government that the boundaries
fixed by the Constitution between the different departments should be preserved,
a just regard to the Constitution and to the duty of my office, under all the
circumstances of this case, forbids a compliance with your request" (Richard-
son's Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 1, p. 196 ) .
PRESIDENT JEFFERSON'S ADMINISTRATION
In January 1807, Representative Randolph introduced a resolution, as follows :
"Resolved, That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, re-
quested to lay before this House any information in possession of the Executive,
except such as he may deem the public welfare to require not to be disclosed,
touching any illegal combination of private individuals against the peace and
safety of the Union, or any military expedition planned by such individuals
against the territories of any power in amity with the United States ; together
with the measures which the Executive has pursued and proposes to take for
suppressing or defeating the same" (16 Annals of Congress (1806-1807), p. 336).
The resolution was overwhelmingly passed. The Burr conspiracy was then
stirring the country. Jefferson had made it the object of a special message to
Congress wherein he referred to a military expedition headed by Burr. Jeffer-
son's reply to the resolution was a message to the Senate and House of Repre-
sentatives. Jefferson brought the Congress up to date on the news which he
had been receiving concerning the illegal combination of private individuals
against the peace and safety of the Union. He pointed out that he had recently
received a mass of data, most of which had been obtained without the sanction
of an oath so as to constitute formal and legal evidence. "It is chiefly in the
form of letters, often containing such a mixture of rumors, conjectures, and sus-
picions as renders it difficult to sift out the real facts and unadvisable to hazard
more than general outlines, strengthened by concurrent information or the par-
ticular credibility of the relator. In this state of the evidence, delivered some-
times too under the restriction of private confidence, neither safety nor justice
will permit the exposing names, except that of the principal actor, whose guilt
is placed beyon question" (Richardson's Messages and Papers of the Presidents,
vol. 1, p. 412, dated January 22, 1807).
SIMILAR ACTIONS BY PRESIDENTS JACKSON, TYLER, BUCHANAN, AND GRANT
On February 10, 1835, President Jackson sent a message to the Senate wherein
he declined to comply with the Senate's resolution requesting him to communi-
cate copies of charges which had been made to the President against the official
conduct of Gideon Fitz, late surveyor-general, which caused his removal from
office. The resolution stated that the information requested was necessary both
in the action which it proposed to take on the nomination of a successor to Fitz,
and in connection with the investigation which was then in progress by the
Senate respecting the frauds in the sales of public lands.
The President declined to furnish the information. He stated that in his
judgment the information related to subjects exclusively belonging to the execu-
tive department. The request therefore encroached on the constitutional powers
of the Executive.
The President's message referred to many previous similar requests, which
he deemed imconstitutional demands by the Senate :
"Their continued repetition imposes on me, as the representative and trustee
of the American people, the painful but imperious duty of resisting to the utmost
any further encroachment on the rights of the Executive" (ibid., p. 133) .
The President next took up the fact that the Senate resolution had been
passed in executive session, from which he was bound to presume that if the
information requested by the reoslution were communicated, it would be applied
in secret session to the investigation of frauds in the sales of public lands. The
President said that, if he were to furnish the information, the citizen whose
conduct the Senate sought to impeach would lose one, of his basic rights, namely,
that of a public investigation in the presence of his accusers and of the witnesses
against him. In addition, compliance with the resolution would subject the
motives of the President, in the case of Mr. Fitz, to the review of the Senate
when not sitting as judges on an impeachment ; and even if such a consequence
did not follow in the present case, the President feared that compliance by the
126 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Executive might thereafter be quoted as a precedent for similar and repeated
applications.
"Such a result, if acquiesced in, would ultimately subject the independent
constitutional action of the Executive in a matter of great national concern-
ment to the domination and control of the Senate; * * *
"I therefore decline a compliance with so much of the resolution of the Sen-
ate as requests 'copies of the charges, if any,' in relation to Mr. Fitz, and in
doing so must be distinctly understood as neither affirming nor denying that
any such cliarges were made; * * *" (ibid. p. 134).
One of tlie liest reasoned precedents of a President's refusal to permit the
head of a department to disclose confidential information to the House of Repre-
sentatives is President Tyler's refusal to communicate to the House of Repre-
sentatives the reports relative to the affairs of tbe Cherokee Indians and to
tbe frauds which were alleged to have been practiced upon them. A resolution
of the House of Representatives had called upon the Secretary of War to com-
municate to tlie House the reports made to the Department of War by Lieutenant
Colonel Hitchcock relative to the affairs of the Cherokee Indians together with
all information communicated by him concerning the frauds he was charged
to investigate ; also all facts in the possession of the Executive relating to tiie
sul>.ipct. The Secretary of War consulted with the President and under the hit-
ter's direction informed the House that negotiations were then pending with
the Indians for settlement of their claims; in the opinion of the President and
the Department, therefore, publication of the report at that time would be
inconsistent wtih the public interest. The Secretary of War further stated
in his answer to the i-esolution that the report sought by the House, dealing with
alleged frauds which Lieutenant Colonel Hitchcock was charged to investigate,
contained information which was obtained by Colonel Hitchcock by ex parte
inquiries of persons whose statements were without the sanction of an oath,
and wliich tlie persons implicated had had no opportunity to contradict or ex-
plain. The Secretary of War expressed the opinion that to promulgate th',>se
statements at that time would be grossly unjust to those persons, and would
defeat the object of the inquiry. He also remarked that the Department had
not been given at that time sufficient ouportunity to pursue the investigation, to
call the parties affected for explanations, or to determine on the measures
proper to be taken.
The answer of the Secretary of War was not satisfactory to the Com-
mittee on Indian Affairs of the House, which claimed the right to demand
from the Executive and heads of departments such information as may be in
their possession relating to sulxiects of the deliberations of the Hou^e.
President Tyler in a message dated .January 31, 1843, vigorously asserted
that the House of Representatives could not exercise a right to call upon the
Executive for information, even though it related to a subject of the delibera-
tions of the House, if, by so doing, it attempted to interfere with the discretion
of the Executive.
The snme course of action was taken by President James Buchanan in ISGO
in resisting a resolution of the House to investigate whether the President
or any other officer of the Government had, by money, patronage or other im-
proper means sought to influence the action of Congress for or against the
passage of any law relating to the rights of any State or Territory (see Rich-
ardscm, "Messages and Papers of the Presidents," vol. 5, pp. 618-6103.
In the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant, the House requested the
President to inform it whether any executive offices, acts, or duties, and if any,
what, have been performed at a distance from the seat of government established
by law. It appears that the purpose of this inquiry was to embarrass the Presi-
dent bv reason of h's having spent some of the hot months at Long Branch.
President Grant repied that he failed to find in the Constitution the authority
given to the House of Representatives, and t^^at the inquiry had nothing to do
with legislation (Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. VII,
pp. 362-363).
PBESIDENT CLEVELAND'S ADMINISTRATION
In 1886, during President Cleveland's administration, there was an extended
discussion in the Senate with reference to its relations to the Executive caused
by the refusal of the Attorney General to transmit to the Senate certain docu-
ments concerning the administration of the office of the district attorney for the
southern district of south Alabama, and suspension of George W. Durkin, the
late incumbent. The majority of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary con-
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 127
eluded it was entitled to know all that ofBcially exists or takes place in any of
the departments of Government and that neither the President nor the head of a
department could withhold official facts and information as distinguished from
private and unofficial papers.
In his reply President Cleveland disclaimed any intention to withhold official
papers, but he denied that papers and documents inherently private or confiden-
tial, addressed to the President or a head of a department, having reference to an
act entirely executive such as the suspension of an official, were changed in their
nature and became official when placed for convenience in the custody of a
public department (Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 8,
pp. 378-379, 381 ) .
Challenging the attitude that because the executive departments were created
by Congress the latter had any supervisory power over them, President Cleveland
declared (Eberling, Congi'essional Investigation, p. 258) :
"I do not suppose that the public offices of the United States are regulated
or controlled in their relations to either House of Congress by the fact that they
were created by laws enacted by themselves. It must be that these instrumen-
talities were created for the benefit of the people and to answer the general pur-
poses of Government under the Constitution and the laws, and that they are
unencumbered by any lien in favor of either branch of Congress growing out of
their construction, and unembarrassed by any obligation to the Senate as the
price of their creation."
PRESinENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT'S ADMINISTRATION
In 1909. during the administration of President Theodore Roosevelt, the
question of the right of the President to exercise complete direction and control
over heads of executive departments was raised again. At that time the Senate
passed a resolution directing the Attorney General to inform the Senate whether
certain legal proceedings had been instituted against the United States Steel
Corp., and if not, the reasons for its nonaction. Request was also made for
any opinion of the Attorney General, if one was written. President Theodore
Roosevelt replied, refusing to honor this request upon the ground that "beads
of the executive departments are subject to the Constitution, and to the laws
passed by the Congress in pursuance of the Constitution, and to the directions
of the President of the United States, but to no other direction whatever"
(Congressional Record, vol. 43, pt. 1, 60th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 527-52S).
When the Senate was unable to get the documents from the Attorney General,
it summoned Herbert K. Smith, the head of the Bureau of Corporations, and
requested the papers and documents on penalty of imprisonment for contempt.
Mr. Smith reported the request to the President, who directed him to turn over
to the President all the papers in the case "so that I could assist the Senate
in the prosecution of its investigation." President Roosevelt then informed
Senator Clark, of the Judiciary Committee, what had been done, that he had
the papers and the only way the Senate could get them was through his
impeachment. President Roosevelt also explained that some of the facts were
given to the Government under the seal of secrecy and cannot be divulged,
"and I will see to it that the word of this Government to the individual is
kept sacred" (Corwin, The President — Office and Powers, pp. 281, 428; Abbott,
"The Letters of Archie Butt, Personal Aide to President Roosevelt," pp. 305-306).
PRESIDENT COOLIDGE's ADMINISTRATION
In 1924, during the administration of President Coolidge, the latter objected
to the action of a special investigating committee appointed by the Senate to
investigate the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Request was made by the com-
mittee for a list of the companies in which the Secretary of the Treasury was
alleged to be interested for the purpose of investigating their tax returns.
Calling this exercise of power an unwarranted intrusion. President Coolidge
said :
"Whatever may be necessary for the information of the Senate or any of its
committees In order to better enable them to perform their legislative or other
constitutional functions ought always to be furnished willingly and expedi-
tiously by any department. But it is recognized both by law and custom that
there is certain confidential information which it would be detrimental to the
public service to reveal" (68th Cong., 1st sess., Record, Apr. 11, 1924, p. 6087).
128 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
PRESIDENT HOOVEE'S ADMINISTKATION
A similar question arose in 1930 during tlie administration of President
Hoover. Secretary of State Stimson refused to disclose to the chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee certain confidential telegrams and letters
leading up to the London Conference and the London Treaty. The committee
asserted its right to have full and free access to all records touching the nego-
tiations of the treaty, basing its right on the constitutional prerogative of the
Senate in the treatymaking process. In his message to the Senate, President
Hoover pointed out that there were a great many informal statements and re-
ports which were given to the Government in confidence. The Executive was
under a duty, in order to maintain amicable relations with other nations, not
to publicize all the negotiations and statements which Aveut into the making
of the treaty. He further declared that the Executive must not be guilty of a
breach of trust, nor violate the invariable practice of nations. "In view of this,
I believe that to further comply with the above resolution would be incompatible
with the public interest" (S. Doc. No. 216, 71st Cong., special sess., p. 2).
PKESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT'S ADMINISTRATION
The position was followed during the administration of President Franklin
D. Roosevelt. There were many instances in which the President and his
executive heads refused to make available certain information to Congress the
disclosure of which was deemed to be confidential or contrary to the public in-
terest. Merely a few need be cited.
1. Federal Bureau of Investigation records and reports were refused to con-
gressional committees, in the public interest (40 Op. Atty. Gen. No. 8, Apr. 30,
1941).
2. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation refused to give testi-
mony or to exhibit a copy of the President's directive requiring him, in the
interests of national security, to refrain from testifying or from disclosing the
contents of the Bureau's reports and activities (hearings, vol. 2, House, 78th
Cong., Select Committee To Investigate the Federal Communications Commis-
sion (1944), p. 2337).
3. Communications between the President and the heads of departments were
held to be confidential and privileged and not subject to inquiry by a committee
of one of the Houses of Congress (letter dated January 22, 1944, signed Francis
Biddle, Attorney General, to select committee, etc.).
4. The Director of the Bureau of the Budget refused to testify and to produce
the Bureau's files, pursuant to subpena which had been served upon him, because
the President had instructed him not to make public the records of the Bureau
due to their confidential nature. Public interest was again invoked to prevent
disclosure. (Reliance placed on Attorney General's opinion in 40 Op. Atty. Gen.
No. 8, Apr. 30, 1941.)
5. The Secretaries of ¥/ar and Navy were directed not to deliver documents
which the committee had requested, on gTounds of public interest. The Secre-
taries, in their own judgment, refused permission to Army and Navy officers
to appear and testify because they felt that it would be contrary to the public
interests (hearings. Select Committee To Investigate the Federal Communi-
cations Commission, vol. 1, pp. 46, 48-68).
PRESIDENT TRUMAN'S ADMINISTRATION
During the Truman administration also the President adhered to the tra-
tional Executive view that the President's discretion must govern the surren-
der of Executive files. Some of the major incidents during the administra-
tion of President Truman in which information, records, and files were denied
to congressional committees were as follows :
Bate Type of document refused
Mar. 4, 1948 FBI letter-report on Dr. Condon, Director of
National Bureau of Standards, refused by
Secretary of Commerce.
Mar. 15, 1948 President issued directive forbidding all ex:ec-
utive departments and agencies to furnish
information or reports concerning loyalty
of their employees to any court or commit-
tee of Congress, unless President approves.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 129
March 1948 Dr. John R. Steelman, confidential adviser to
the President, refused to appear before Com-
mittee on Education and Labor of the House,
following the service of 2 subpenas upon him.
President directed him not to appear.
Aug. 5, 1948 Attorney General wrote Senator Ferguson,
chairman of Senate Investigations Subcom-
mittee, that he would not furnish letters,
memoranda, and other notices which the Jus-
tice Department had furnished to other Gov-
ernment agencies concerning W. W. Reming-
ton.
Feb. 22, 1950 S. Res. 231 directing Senate subcommittee to
procure State Department loyalty files was
met with President Truman's refusal, follow-
ing vigorous opposition of J. Edgar Hoover.
Mar. 27, 1950 Attorney General and Director of FBI ap-
peared before Senate subcommittee. Mr.
Hoover's historic statement of reasons for re-
fusing to furnish raw files approved by At-
torney General.
May 16, 1951 .. General Bradley refused to divulge conversa-
tions between President and his advisers to
combine Senate Foreign Relations and Armed
Services Committees.
Jan. 31, 1952 President Truman directed Secretary of State
to refuse to Senate Internal Security Sub-
committee the reports and views of foreign
service officers.
Apr. 22, 1952 Acting Attorney General Perlman laid down
procedure for complying with requests for in-
spection of Department of Justice files by
Committee on the Judiciary :
Requests on open cases would not be hon-
ored. Status report will be furnished.
As to closed cases, files would be made
available. All FBI reports and confi-
dential information would not be made
available.
As to personnel files, they are never dis-
closed.
Apr. 3, 1952 President Truman instructed Secretary of
State to withhold from Senate Appropria-
tions Subcommittee files on loyalty and se-
curity investigations of employees — policy to
apply to all executive agencies. The names
of individuals determined to be security risks
would not lie divulged. The voting record of
members of an agency loyalty board would
not be divulged.
Thus, you can see that the Presidents of the United States have withheld in-
formation of executive departments or agencies whenever it was found that
the information sought w^as confidential or that its disclosure would be incom-
patible with the public interest or jeopardize the safety of the Nation. The
courts too have held that the question whether the production of the papers
was contrary to the public interest, was a matter for the Executive to determine.
B.v keeping the lines which separate and divide the three great branches of
our Government clearly defined, no one branch has been able to encroach upon
the powers of the other.
Upon this firm principle of our country's strength, liberty, and democratic
form of government will continue to endure.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. I don't want to object to the admission of this, and
I think I can avoid any objection by stipulation which I am sure
Mr. Chadwick will enter into, namely, that that letter of May 17, 1954,
130 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
from the President to the Secretary of Defense laid down a rule which
had applicability only to the Mnndt committee and it did not have gen-
eral applicability to the Government Operations Committee, of which
Senator McCarthy is chairman. It related solely and exclusively to
the specific hearing which was being conducted under the chairman-
ship of Senator Mundt, of South Dakota, and had no relevancy or ap-
plicability to any other hearing or any other committee function.
Mr. Chauwick. Mr. Williams, I stated I could not affirm that fact
because I am not authorized and have no power to construe, limit the
effect of an order of the President. It is manifestly, on its face, re-
lated to the matters in question.
Mr. WiLLL\Ms. To the matters?
Mr. Chadwick. Whether it goes further, sir, I cannot limit it by
any stipulation which I would enter into.
The Chairman. May I say, gentlemen, that we will check that mat-
ter further in the light of what Mr. Williams has now called to our
attention and if it should appear to be irrelevant and immaterial to
the present issue and has no bearing on it, it will be excluded.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, I submit to you herewith a brief
prepared by the staff summariizng the pertinent cases, rules. Presi-
dential orders, and directives and other legal matters, which will be
cited and relied upon by the staff in support of the propositions de-
veloped before the committee.
We request and suggest that it shall be printed as a supplement to
the record, subject to additions and corrections.
This brief is not submitted as testimony, but is convenient reference
material for the committee and Senate and any other interested
persons.
A copy of this brief has been supplied to Mr. Williams.
The Chairman. I take it from your statement it could be proved.
That seems to be proper.
Mr. Chadwick. May I proceed, sir, to cite the headings of this
brief and such matters therein as seem pertinent to read into the record
now for the immediate information of the committee?
The Chairman. You may.
We do not want you to read the whole brief, but you may cite the
material therein.
Mr. Chadwick. This is submitted as pertaining to law relating to
specifications I to V, inclusive, the specifications being those adopted
in the notice which the chairman gave before the commencement of
these hearings.
With respect to part I, which is contempt of Senate or committee, we
call attention to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1945, Public
Law 601, and section 102 thereof for standing committees of the
Senate.
We have referred and read into the record and reference has been
made to Senate Resolution 187 of the 82d Congress, the 1st session,
introduced by Senator Banton of Connecticut and referred on August
6, 1951 — and I shall not read all the material which follows. It is
available for the committee, for Mr. Williams, and for the record.
We have reached the conclusion that it is not necessary to deter-
mine whether the Gillette-Hennings subcommittee had or had not
the power to subpena Senator McCarthy. He did not demand a sub-
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 131
pena and no subpena was issued. It was clear the subcommittee had
the power to request his appearance other than by subpena.
The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections
was not limited to the conduct of Senator McCarthy connected with
elections, but the jurisdiction of that subcommittee extended to acts
totally unconnected with election matters, but which were relevant in
inquiries relating to expulsion, exclusion, and censure.
We call attention to the Congressional Record of the Senate of
April 8, 1952, at page 3701 ; also at pages 3753 to 3756.
We call attention to the purpose of the introduction of Senate Reso-
lution 300, 82d Congress, 2d session, by Senator Hayden, on April
8, 1952, as shown by the Congressional Record and the senatorial
debate, that it was to affirm or deny the contention of Senator Mc-
Carthy that the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections lacked
jurisdiction to investigate such acts of the Senator from Wisconsin as
were not connected with elections and campaigns, as well as to bring
before the Senate the charges of Senator McCarthy reflecting upon
the honesty and sincerity of the members of the subcommittee.
The matter of the Senate vote on that is referred to.
On the question of the nature of the Senate as a continuing body,
the contention has been made that the Senate is not a continuing body
and that the incidents under category I, relating to contempt of the
Senate or a senatorial committee, cannot be inquired into by the select
committee under the authority of at least three cases cited. Those
cases are :
Anderson v. Dunn in 6 Wheaton, 204 ;
Journey v. McCrachen (294 U. S. 125) ;
United States v. Bryan (339 U. S. 323).
All cases were cited by Mr. Williams in oral argument or state-
ment before this committee.
This statement by counsel im])lies that the Senate may censure a
member only when he is guilty of contempt.
Counsel for the committee does not believe there is any legal limi-
tation to this effect and that there are acts on the part of a member
of the Senate which may warrant his censure unrelated to any of
contempt toward the Senate or one of its committees. Furthermore,
the examination of the three cases cited shows that they are without
direct application or control to this question.
We cite Senate Document No. 99 of the 83d Congress, 2d session,
a document entitled "Congressional -^Power of Investigation." We
have called attention to the fact that on page 7, while the rule with
reference to the House, whose Members are all elected for a period
of a single Congress, may be the same as in the case of the two Houses
of Parliament, this rule cannot be the case with the Senate, which is
a continuing body w^hose Members are elected for a term of 6 years
and so divided into classes that the seats of one-third only become
vacant at the end of each Congress, two-third always continuing into
the next Congress.
The continuity of the Senate was questioned at the beginning of
the 83d Congress and the issue Avas resolved in favor of the uniform
precedents. See Senate rule XXXII, providing that the legislative
business of the Senate shall be resumed and proceeded with as if no
adjournment had taken place and all papers referred to committees
and not reported upon at the close of a session of Congress shall be
132 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
delivered by the Secretary of the Senate to the several committees to
Avhich they had previously been referred.
We also call attention to the Senate debate in the Congressional
Record of the Senate of January 6, 1953, pages 92 to 114.
We also call attention to Senate Document No. 4 of 1933, of the
83d Congress and to the case of McGrain v, Doherty (273 U. S. 135),
at page 181. The date was 1927.
See also Senate rule XXV, page 42 (3) .
D, Necessity of an oath before congiessional committees :
In reference to the necessity of an oath before congressional com-
mittees, and the contention heretofore raised before this committee,
we refer to page 18 of Senate Document No. 99, 83d Congress, 2d
session, previously referred to, which states :
While the administration of an oath to a witness adds dignity to a congres-
sional hearing, it is not essential —
since the Senate may make its own rules, even in censure or expulsion
cases, and there is no rule requiring the administration of an oath to
a witness, it is respectfuly submitted that the point is not well taken.
On the general power of the Senate to censure one of its INIembers,
article 1, section 5, clause 1, of the Constitution provides that each
House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications
of its own Members.
Clause 2 of the same section provides that each House may deter-
mine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly
behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds expel a Member.
Senate rule XIX, clause 2, provides that no Senator in debate
shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another
Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or
unbecoming a Senator. These provisions are respectfully called to
the attention of the select committee, not as limitations upon the
extent of censurable conduct, but as perhaps pertinent to the present
inquiry.
Part 11. Law relating to invitation for and use of classified material :
In this connection we cite the statutory oath imposed upon employees
of the Government generally and particularly as Senator Case asked
us to make a reference to this as a part of the record. The oath of
office is as follows :
1, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same ; that I take this obliga-
tion freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion ; and that I will
well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office in which I am about to
enter. So help me God. (5 U. S. 16.)
We assume, sir, for purposes of information of the committee, that
the staff has been as yet unable to find that. A search of the statutes
fails to disclose: (a) any provision for administering or any form
of "security oath," or (b) any provision for or protection of "the chain
of command of the civil service," referred to in amendment 14 pro-
posed by Senator Flanders.
We cite the Espionage Act, Ignited States Code chapter 37 on the
subject Espionge and Censorship. I refer only to sections thereof
which, of course, will be set out in full.
Title 18, section 793(d) covers "gathering, transmitting, or losing
defense information."
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 133
The Scame section, 792, covers harboring or concealing any person
"who he knows or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has
committed or is about to commit, an affense under sections 793 or 794"
of this article "shall be" — and there follows a statement of the penalty
in connection therewith, (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 736.)
Of the pertinent subject with which we are dealing, and under the
subhead "crimes, general provisions, misprision of felony," we cite
United States Code, chapter I, title 18, section 4, which I shall read :
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable
by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make
known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority
under the United States, shall be fined (penalty, etc.). (June 25, 1948, ch.
645, 62 Stat. 684.
On the subject Disclosure of Confidential Information Generally,
( 18 U. S. Code, sec. 1905) , reads :
Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of any depart-
ment or agency thereof, publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes known in any
manner or to any extent not authorized by law any information coming to
him in the course of his employment or official duties * * * shall be —
and this is followed in the act by the statement of the penalty.
On the subject of Activities Affecting Armed Forces. Generally, we
cite the act of June 25, 1948, chapter. 645, 62 Stat. c. 811, as amended
May 24, 1949, chapter 139, section 46, 63 Stat. 96.
From that section, I read ifi more detail the provisions of sec-
tion (b) :
For the purposes of this section, the term "military or navel forces of the
United States" includes the Army of the United States, the Navy, Air Force,
Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Naval Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast
Guard Reserve of the United States ; and, when any merchant vessel is com-
missioned in the Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes
the master, officers, and crew of such vessel.
On the subject of Kemoval from Classified Civil Service, we cite an
act which has been referred to heretofore in the hearings, or in the
testimony. We call the attention of the committee to the last sentence
of an act approved August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 555, U. S. C. 5, 652 (d) ),
whicli reads:
The right of persons employed in the civil service of the United States, either
individually or collectively to petition Congress, or any Member thereof, or to
furnish information to either House of Congress, or to any committee or
member thereof, shall not be deeuied or interfered with.
As I say, this has been cited before in the hearing, or in the testi-
mony, upon which our evidence is based. We include it at this point,
because we feel that this provision has little, if any, application to
these hearings, because the act as an entirety refers to removals of
persons from classified civil service for sufiicient cause, and after
due notice and written charges.
Furthermore, this act must be interpreted in the light of subsequent
pertinent resolutions and Executive orders, under the heading "U. S.
Code, Title 5, Section 22," which reads as follows :
The head of each department is authorized to prescribe regulations, not incon-
sistent with law, for the government of bis department, the conduct of its officers
and clerks, the distribution and performance of its business, and the custody, use,
and preservation of the records, papers, and property appertaining to it.
Senator Case. Mr. Chadwick, do you know the date of that statute?
Mr. Chadwick. I can get it in just a minute.
134 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator Case. I note that the date of the section you earlier read
with reference to persons in the chxssified civil service was 1912, and
that the date of the sections you read from the Espionage Act were
various dates, principally June 25, 1948 ; but I think it would be helpful
to have the date of the section you just read, too.
Mr. Chadwick. We would be glad to have it now, sir, and inserted
before the matter reaches the committee. It will take me a few minutes
to get the date and if I may, I will proceed with the other matter and
supply it as soon as we are able to do so.
Is that satisfactory. Senator Case?
Senator Case. That is all right.
Mr. Chadwick. Subhead H, Department of Justice Order No. 3229,
counsel calls the attention of the committee to the Department of Jus-
tice order which was filed on May 2, 1946, 11 Federal Kegister 4920, 18
Federal Register 1369, which reads :
Pursuant to authority vested in me by Revised Statutes 161, United States
Code title V, section 22, it is hereby ordered that all oflficial files, documents, and
records and information in the offices of the Department of Justice, including the
several offices of the United States attorneys, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
United States marshal, and Federal penal and correctional institutions, or in the
custody or control of any officer or employee within the Department of Justice,
are to be regarded as confidential.
No officer or employee may permit the disclosure or use of same for any purpose
other than for the performance of his official duties except in the discretion of th»
Attorney General or Assistant Attorney General acting for liim.
This order was held valid by the United States Supreme Court in
United States ex rel. Touhy v. Regan (340, U. S. 462), in the year
1951.
But the subhead which is marked "I," we go at some length into the
Presidential directive of March 13, 1948, 13 Federal Register 1359,
under the title of Presidential directive, March 13, 1948, "Confidential
Status of Employee Loyalty Report," a memorandum to all offices and
employees of the Federal branch of the Government.
The directive contains these further orders :
This directive shall be published in the Federal Register and over the signature
of Harry S. Truman. The date, March 13, 1948.
The above order apparently was in effect in May or June of 1953
when Senator McCarthy received the 214-page document, according
to his statement in the Army-McCarthy hearing, and also at the time
of his public invitation during those hearings.
We call attention, under subtitle J, to Executive Order 10290. Title
3, the President. Executive Order 10290 prescribing regulations
and establishing minimum standards for the classification, transmis-
sion, and handling by departments and agencies of the executive
branch of official information which requires safeguarding in the
interest of the security of the United States.
I shall read the order in more detail :
Whereas it is necessary in order to protect the national security of the United
States, to establish for the safeguarding of official information, the unauthorized
disclosure of which would or could harm, tend to impair, or otherwise threaten
the security of the Nation ; and
Whereas it is desirable and proper tliat minimum standards for pi-ocedures
designed to protect the national security against such unauthorized disclosure
be uniformly applicable to all departments and agencies of the executive branch
of the Government and be known to and understood by those who deal with the
Federal Government ; and
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 135
Whereas the furnishing of information to the public about Government activ-
ities will be facilitated by clear identification and marking of those matters,
the safeguarding of which is required in the interest of national security;
Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and
statutes, and as President of the United States, the regulations attached hereto,
entitled "Regulations Establishing Minimum Standards for the Classification,
Transmission, and Handling, by Departments and Agencies of the Executive
Branch, of Official Information Which Requires Safeguarding in the Interest of
the Security of the United States," are hereby prescribed for application
throughout the executive branch of the Government to the extent not inconsistent
with law.
Such regulations shall take effect 30 days after their publication in the
Federal Register.
All citizens of the United States who may have knowledge of or access to class-
ified security information are requested to observe the standards established
in such regulations with respect to such information and to join with the
Federal Government in a concerted and continuing effort to prevent disclosure
of such information to persons who are inimical to the interests of the United
States.
That is signed by Harry S. Truman, the White House, September
24, 1951.
Mr. Chairman, the instrument itself is law and will have to be read
by the committee with particularity, and it has no doubt been read
by Mr. Williams. I will refrain from rereading it in its entirety.
Under title K we referred to Executi\e Order 10450 of April 27,
1953, title III, the President— Executive Order 10450, Security Ke-
quiremeiits for Government Employment.
This order is signed by D wig] it D. Eisenhower and dated April 27,
195o. It is as follows :
Whereas the intei'cst of the national security requires that all persons priv-
ileged to be employed in their departments and agencies of the Government shall
be reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and of complete and
unswerving loyalty to the United States, and.
Whereas the American tradition that all persons should receive impartial and
equitalile treatment at the hands of the Government requires that all persons
seeking the privilege of employment or privileged to be employed in the depart-
ments and agencies of the Government be judged by mutually consistent and
no less than minimum standards and procedures among the departments and
agencies governing tlie employment and retention in employment of persons
in the Federal service.
Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution
and statutes of tlie United States, including section 17.53 of the Revised Statutes
of the United States (5 U. S. C. 631), the Civil Service Act of 18S3 (22 Stat. 403,
.5 U. S. C. 632, et seq.), section 9A of the act of April 2. Ilt3;» (.53 Stat. 1148, 5
U. S. C. 118j). and the act of August 20, 1J).50 (64 Stat. 476, 5 U. S. C. 2201 et
seq.), and as President of the United States, and deeming such action necessary
in the best interests of the national security, it is hereby ordered as follows :
Section 1 : In addition to the departments and agencies specified in the said
act of August 26, 1950, and Executive Order No. 10237 of April 26, 1951, the
provisions of that act shall apply to all other departments and agencies of the
Government.
Section 2. The head of each department and agency of the Government shall
be responsible for establishing and niaintain.ing within his department or agency
an effective program to insure that the employment and retention in employment
of any civilian officer or employee within the department or agency is clearly
consistent with the interests of the national security.
The reports and other investigative material and information developed by
invesfiiiations conducted pursuant to any statute, order, or program described
in .section 7 of this order shall remain the property of the investigative agencies
conducting the investigations, but may, subject to considerations of the national
security, be retained by the department or agency concerned. Such reports and
other investigative material and information shall be maintained in confidence,
and in no access shall be given thereto except, with the consent of the investiga-
tive agency concerned to other departments and agencies conducting security pro-
136 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
grams under the authority granted by or in accordance with the said act of
August 26, 1950, as may he required for the efficient conduct of Government
business.
Section 15 : This order shall become effective 30 days after the date hereof.
The publication date of the order is Federal Register Document
50-3794, filed April 27, 1953, under an hour of 4 : 04 p. m.
This directive was apparently effective in May and June of 1953
and during the Army-McCarthy hearings.
Under the subheading "L" of Executive Order 10501 of Novem-
ber 5, 1953, "safeguarding oflicial information in the interests of the
defense of the United States" the subject matter of the order is quite
lengthy.
I will content myself with reading only sections 18, 19, and 20
and over the signature of the President.
Section 18 is entitled, "Review Within Departments and Agencies."
It goes on to state :
The head of each department and agency shall designate a member or mem-
bers of his staff who shall conduct a continuing review of the implementation
of this order within the department or agency concerned to insure that no
information is withheld hereunder which the people of the United States have
a right to know, and to insure that classified defense information is properly
safeguarded in conformity herewith.
Section 19 : Revocation of Executive Order No. 102900.
Executive Order No. 10290 of September 24, 1951, is revoked as of the effec-
tive date of this order.
Section 20: Effective date. This order shall become effective on December
15, 1953.
This appears in Federal Register Docket 53-9553, filed November
9, 1953, under an hour of 9 : 55 a. m.
We refer to subheading "M" of the Constitution of the United
States of America, revised and annotated 1952, Senate Document 170,
82d Congress, 2d session, page 82 :
If Congress so provides, violation of valid administrative regulations may be
provided as crimes. But the penalty must be provided in the statute itself. * * *
Mr, Chairman, referring to part III or category III of our presenta-
tion under this notice on the subject of "Abuse of Colleagues," we
cite the United States Constitution, article I, section 6, clause 1 :
The Senators and Representatives * * * for any speech or debate in either
House shall not be questioned in any other place.
The constitutional clause is intended to protect the Members against
suit or prosecution, not for their own benefit, but to enable the Repre-
sentatives of the people to execute the functions of their office with-
out fear. It is an absolute privilege and immunity against all but
the House itself.
We cite Jefferson's Manual, section 3; Hind's Precedents of the
House, 1907, section 1244, page 797; the Journal of the 1st session
of the 39th Congress, May 14, 1866, page 695 ; Globe, page 2573 ; Hind's
Precedents of the House, page 795.
The United States Constitution by article I, section 5, clause 2,
provides :
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its members
for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds expel a member.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 137
Now, from the Standing Rules of the Senate, we cite rule XIX,
section 2 :
No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute
to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or
unbecoming a Senator.
We refer to Jefferson's Manual, section XVII.
We refer to the Legislative Reorganization Act the powers of com-
mittee and government operations.
As to part 1, Standing Rules of the Senate, standing committees of
the Senate, section 102 is as follows :
Rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended to read as follows :
"Rule XXV
"standing committees
"(1) The following standing committtees shall be appointed at the com-
mencement of each Congress, with leave to report by bill or otherwise ; * * *
"(g) (1) Committee on Government Operations, to consist of 13 Senators, to
which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, j)etitions,
memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects :
"(A) Budget and accounting measures, otlier than appropriations.
"(B) Reorganizations in the executive branch of the Government.
"(2) Such committee shall have the duty of—
"(A) Receiving and examining reports of the Comptroller General of the
United States and of submitting such recommendations to the Senate as it deems
necessary or desirable in connection with the subject matter of such reports ;
"(B) Studying the operation of Government activities at all levels with a view
to determine its economy and efficiency ;
"(C) Evaluating the effects of laws enacted to reorganize the legislative and
executive branches of the Government ;
"(D) Studying intergovernmental relationships between the United States
and the States and municipalities, and between the United States and interna-
tional organizations of which the United States is a member."
As to part IV, "Procedure Before Investigating Committees," the
first part of the discussion is with respect to the rights of witnesses
before congressional committees.
We refer to Senate Document 99, 8od Congress, 2d session, filed
1954.
Under the subheading of "Disgracing and Inconveniencing Ques-
tions," there is a discussion on the rights and duties of witnesses.
Then on page 16 the right to counsel, the privilege of a witness to
have advice of counsel depends u23on the committee, and the rule has
varied a good deal.
There are some citations at length on the subject.
On page 17, under the heading of cross-examination there is this
provision : Whether a witness or his counsel may cross-examine other
witnesses depends on the attitude of the committee.
It has been said that the custom is to permit little or no cross-exami-
nation, then there is a citation and a more extended discussion.
And on a subject of presenting written statements or calling wit-
nesses, a discussion.
And with respect to the pertinency of testimony, discussion and,
Mr. Williams, a citation of Sinclair v. U. S. ((1929) 279 United
States, 263) , with a quotation therefrom.
And on page 18 under No. 7, with respect to defamation by a con-
gressional witness, material and discussion and cases.
138 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
On paga 19, with respect to the undignified activity of a member,
discussion, citation of tlie case of TJ . S. v. Peehart et al. ((1952) 183
Fed. Supp. 417), and referring to a case Barsky v. U. S. ( (1943) 167
Fed. Second 241, 250).
Senator Case. Mr. Cliairman.
The Chairman. Senator Case.
Senator Case. Just judging by the headings of these several para-
graphs which counsel has placed into the record and without reading
the detailed subject matter, it occurs to me that at least the para-
graphs under the heading "Right of Witnesses Before Congressional
Conmiittees" and the i-ight of counsel and the right of cross-examina-
tion would well be worth reading in detail, and if time permits and
under the plan of the morning session, I would like to have them
read.
Mr. Chadwtck. I should be very glad to read them.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, under the heading part IV, "Pro-
cedure Before Investigating Committees" and reading the paragraph
labeled "x\," "Rights of Witnesses Before Congressional Committees,"
I wonder if counsel might proceed with that?
Mr. Chadwick. To spare my voice, I request that associate counsel
read this.
The Chairman. Mr. de Furiu will proceed to read.
Mr. DE FuRiA. With the permission of the chairman, part IV,
"Procedure Before Investigating Committees," section A —
The Chairman. What are you reading from ?
Mr. DE Furia. This is a resum^ of the law, Mr. Chairman, made by
i\\^ staff for the committee.
The Chairman. Are you reading from the Reorganization Act,
or merely a statement commenting on it ?
Mr. DE Furia. It is a comment of the committee counsel, the choice of
the words being mostly our own, based upon an interpretation of the
authorities, cases, and statutes, as well as the precedents of the House
and the Senate, relating to this subject.
The Chairman. \ ou may proceed.
Mr. DE FiTRiA. Subsection A, "Rights of Witnesses Before Congres-
sional Committees" :
There are no statutes protecting a witness appearing before a congressional
committee from intimidation or coercion. In fact, tliere are very few absolute
safeguards for tbe protection of a witui'ss before a congressional committee.
His treatment generally is dependent upon the attitude of the chairman and
the members of the committee. An investigation conducted by a committee is
not a trial : therefore the rules of a court of law do not apply. Nor, generally
speaking, do the constitutional guaranties relative —
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Case.
Senator Case. Who is saying that? Is that the counsel's discus-
sion or is that some statement by some authority, or is that a statute ?
Mr. DE Furia. That is counsel's conclusion, Senator Case, based
upon the authorities cited. I did not read the authorities. I think
you have a copy of our law brief. I think there are about 10 authori-
ties. I will be ghid to read them into the record.
Senatoi- Case. The statements you have read are the conclusions of
counsel, based upon autliorities cited?
Mr. DE Furia. Yes, sir.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 139
Senator Case. But tlie statements are not the statements of any
court or of an,y precise authority or constitutional precedents or con-
gressional precedent.
Mr. DE I^'uKiA. No, sir. Wherever we have a quotation from an
authority, sir, I shall indicate quotation marks.
The Chairman. May I inquire of Senator Case whether he still
wants that read, since it is not a citation of any court or congressional
adjudication of any kind.
Senator Case. 1 note below there are some quotation marks.
Whether they are direct quotes from something, I think it would be
just as well to have them read.
The CHAimiAN. Would counsel please read the quotation ?
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. There will be time for argument on presenting the
various views with respect to whatever the statute and rules of the
Senate are in due time. We ]:)ermitted the reading of the general
subject and these statutes and the general law governing this inquiry^
governing the matter of accusations that have been refererd to us by
the Senate.
Senator Case, how seriously do you want that pressed?
Senator Case. I think you might hnish this paragrapli under that
heading, and whether it is a quotation from a court decision or whether
it is counsel's opinion.
The Chairman. If it is counsel's o])inion, you do not want him to
read it, do you, or you may have whatever you want on that.
Senator Case. I think he could finish the paragraph in the time we
are discussing it.
The Chairman. All right, proceed.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Nor, generally speaking, do the constitutional guar-
anties relative to trials have any application except possibly those re-
lating to the privilege against self-incrimination — the fifth amend-
ment— and to the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and
seizures — the fourth amendment.
In conducting a hearing, the committee thus is not bound to follow
the rules of evidence or the precedents or principles of courts of law.
And there is a citation from various authorities, including Townsend
V. United States^ which is as follows :
* * * study of the practice in investigative proceedings and of the rules
pertaining thereto indicates that * * * they have been to a large extent un-
trammeled by legal rules and prescriptions,.
Continuing with the presentation of committee counsel : It is funda-
mental, of course, that the investigation nnist be in ]nn-suit of a legis-
lative purpose. But as investigation will be presumed to have such
a purpose and once that purpose is established, the inquiry may be as
broad, searching, and exhaustive as is necessary to make effective the
constitutional powers of Congress.
Again quoting from the Supreme Court decision of Toiunsend v.
United States:
Within the realm of legislati\e discretion, the exercise of good taste and
good judgment in the examination of witnesses must be entrusted to those
who have been vested with authority to conduct such investigations * * *.
52461 — 54 10
140 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The witness cannot determine for himself whether the questions
proposed are germane to the matter of inquiry ;
orderly processes of legislative inquiry require tiiat the committee shall deter-
mine such questions for itself.
Senator Case, the chairman, has asked me to read the provision
from United States Code 2, section 193, reading as follows :
No witness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any
paper, respecting which he shall be examined by either House of CongTess, or
by any .ioint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the
two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House, upon the ground
that his testimony to such fact or his production of such papers may tend to
disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous.
Mr. Chadwick. I had expected, Mr. Chairman, to pick up and com-
plete the two additional pages of the summary of which I was engaged
when we referred to some particular inquiry therein.
With your permission, and for the sake of certainty, I think I read
at page 19, with reference to the undignified activity of a Member,
without reading into detail.
On page 19, and 20, 12, quorum citations, including United States
Y. DiCarlo (1952, 102 Fed. Supp. 597), and United States v. Auippa
(1952, 102 Fed. Supp. 609) ; also United States v. Bryan (1950, 339
U. S. 323, 332-335).
At pages 21 and 22 is a study which supports certain propositions
which are cited by us in detail.
The final reference on the brief is to the rules of the Senate,
at article 1, sectioii 5, clause 2, of the Constitution, authorizing
the Houses to determine the rules of their proceedings, and legal
propositions citing United States v. Ballin (114 U. S. 1, 5, 1892,
p. 97).
That is the conclusion of the brief in its present form.
Mv. Williams. Mr. Cliairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. If Mr. Chadwick has concluded, I would like to
say, sir, that I have no objection to his legal brief going into the
record, provided it is labeled for wliat it is. It is a vigorously
partisan advocate's brief on the law. It is a prosecutor's brief,
and, as such, I think it should go into the record provided it is
labeled as such and provided it is identified as being the prosecutor's
side of this case.
I say that, sir, for this reason : In this brief Mr. Chadwick under-
takes to answer a couple of arguments which I was not permitted to
make on the first day. I don't think it is quite fair that this brief
should purport to be an impartial analysis of a law when it at the same
time undertakes to refute an argument which I probably had only
completed 5 percent of at the time I was interrupted on the first day.
I want to call attention also to this : That in this brief counsel says
on three occasions, where he said orally as he referred to it —
We have decided that the Gillette committee had jurisdiction contrary to
the iwsition advanced by counsel for Senator McCarthy.
The Chairman, I state, Mr. Williams, that is not the decision of
the committee. That is the decision of the counsel.
Mr, Williams. And we also
The Chairman. I would say also no committee member, as far as
I know, has read tliis brief.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 141
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. I appreciate that.
He also said, and I think this is very important :
We have decided it is not Important whether Senator McCarthy was suu-
penaed or not because the fact is he was not and did not demand a subpena.
Mr. Chadwick has arrived at this startling conclusion without hear-
ing our defense, and I think he is a little premature in making de-
cisions before we have been accorded the opportunity either to pre-
sent our side of the law or to present our side of the facts.
The Chairman. May I say this : That the statement by Mr. Chad-
wick and Mr. de Furia represents their own views and they are not
the views of the committee, and no decision has been made on these
points, except in a preliminary way we had to decide the matters
we were going to take testimony on and we made that decision. The
final decision has not been made on any of these matters and when
he says they decided, he is speaking for the committee counsel and
nobocly else.
Mr. WiLLLVMS. I would like to make just one more observation,
if I may, sir, with respect to this material which Mr. Chadwick has
presented for his side of this case.
The Chairman. There is not any side of it, as far as the committee
is concerned. We are still going to get all the evidence, all the law
we can on this matter that is pertinent and relevant. We want to
get all the facts, and we have offered to subpena anyone that you
wanted, or to follow any leads that you had, that you might suggest,
so we can have the investigators get that evidence and bring the
witnesses before this committee, so long as it is relevant and pertinent
to the hearings on these particular charges.
Now, that being the situation, I think what the gentlemen have clone
here is in keeping with the whole matter, to get the law.
Of course, when they read the law, read a statement into law and
they go over a matter, apparently they have it to make up their minds
whether it is one way or another; otherwise they could have said,
"It might be this way ; it might be the other," and it would be of very
little help in making up the minds of the committee.
Mr. Williams. I would hope, if Mr. Chadwick is serving as legal
counsel to the committee, he will not impose his legal mind on these
propositions before we are given an opportunity to be heard.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Williams, may I have a word ?
The Chairman. Just let him finish, Mr. Chadwick. I interrupted
him, and I want him to finish.
Mr. Williams. I want to say this ajso : Our position with respect to
the Gillette committee was misrepresented, and I am sure inadvertently
misrepresented. It seems to me in this brief here Mr. Chadwick has
built a strawman up and then shot him down. It is a strawman we
don't adopt. We have never said at any time, nor do we say now, nor
shall we say hereafter, that the Gillette committee did not have juris-
diction to look into the exclusion and expulsion and censure matters.
Wliat we did say, operating as it was under the Benton resolution,
was that it did not have the authority to go back behind 1947 because
the Benton resolution gave it authority only to go to 1947, as it was
originally drawn, as it was subsequently ratified by the Senate.
Secondly, there was a reference made to title XVIII, section 1905.
The brief which Mr. Chadwick has handed me a copy of does not
142 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
even piirpoit to quote all of that statute. It talks about whoever
being an officer of the Government divulges or discloses or makes
known information shall be subject to a penalty. Half the statute is
quoted and Mr. Chadwick said the remaining part of it simply related
to the people's sanction; but the fact of the matter is the remaining
part of the statute demonstrates clearly that Congress was talking
about trade secrets, processes, operations, and apparatuses, insofar
as the information related thereto is concerned,
Tlien, also, the statenieut was made tliat title V, section 652, which
guarantees the right to every member of the executive department to
bring information to Members of Congress and provides specifically
that right sliall not be interfered with, was read in this brief, and Mr.
Chadwick made the remark, as he read it, that, of course, that would
be superseded by regulations and resolutions of the Senate, specifically
mentioning the resolutions on secrecy or tlie Executive orders on
secrecy by the Pies i dent.
I want to call the attention of the committee to the fact, lest any
inference be drawn from what Mr. Chadwick said to the contrary,
that Congress reenacted title V, section 652, in 1948, 4 months after we
had the first Truman secrecy order. In other words. Congress, at the
time that it passed the statute, had the Truman order before it. Execu-
tive order on secrecy, and in the face of that it reenacted this statute to
guarantee to members in the executive their right to petition Congress,
and to give them such information as they have.
Now, I think those things, in the interest of fairness — I know I am
premature in getting into the defense, but I can't let these matters go
unchallenged when they are given in the guise of an impartial analysis
of the law.
I say I have no objection to this going in if it is labeled as a legal
view of this case, Mr. Chadwick's legal view of this case, but certainly
I do object to its going in as to the findings on the law of impartial
counsel.
]\Ir. Chadwick. ]Mr. Williams, I am glad to have an opportunity now
to reply to several aspects of your statement.
First, I want to say, sir, in all respect, that the brief as produced
was an honest effort to produce an impartial review of the law as we
find it, without application to the matters before the committee.
Your criticisms, sir, are those which counsel very naturally feels
about briefs that anyone prepares. We always feel we could make up
a better one or we regret that we haven't ])repared a better one. How-
ever, the paper was prepared by us tinder the strict instruction of this
committee that our approach to the problem, and a fair approach,
should be nonpartisan, and I think it will be found there are sections
there wdiich a lay reader might believe had direct a])])lication to the
support of other views than those which we advanced.
Now, I have another question : You point to the fact we cited three
cases which you had quoted to us. Naturally, we take account of all
cases that come to our attention. Whether we had all three of those
cases, or not, before you mentioned them, I cannot now assert.
I tlo assert, however, if they had any ai)plication when you men-
tioned them at the bar of this committee, they have an a]i]^lication also-
to our brief.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 143
And, Mr. Williams, is it not the fact that j^ou promised me a week
ago tliat you would let me have your brief, the brief in support of your
position to which you refer ?
It is my recollection you called me afterward and said you would
be a few days late, and I said, of course, your time was my time on the
question of the delivery of your brief.
Am I correct in stating now I have not yet seen your brief ?
Mr. Williams. You are correct to this extent, Mr. Chadwick : You
are correct insofar as what you have said, but you haven't stated the
whole fact. The whole fact is that I went before this full committee,
which was in executive session, I believe, on Thursday evening, and I
told the committee that I had made a commitment to furnish it with
certain legal principles in the form of a brief and the commitment
was they were to have it on Thursday. I said to the members of the
committee, and you were present, that I could comply with t?iat com-
mitment if I kept the girls in the office at the mimeographing machines
late that evening. It was the Unanimous feeling of the committee that
I should not do that and if I presented my position today in written
form that I would fully comport with the desires of the committee.
That is the fact, Mr. Chadwick, and I propose to submit my brief
here today, but what I objected to, sir, was that you undertook to
answer me on an oral argument that I had started to make, but was not
permitted to finish, was not permitted to get into, which I do not think
complies with the basic dictates of fair play.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Williams, that is a matter which I and the
committee should take into cognizance. I have always tried to be
fair, and I am generally successful. I didn't mean to dispute there
was any question with respect to delay in the preparation of your
brief. I merely pointed out we could not postpone the preparation
of our brief until your very efficient and, I am sure, hard-worked staff
had a chance to prepare yours.
Senator Ervix. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Ervin.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make just this obser-
vation : I think there is a good deal to what Mr. Williams says with
reference to the designation of the brief. Wlien this matter goes back
to the Senate, it will necessarily go on the record made before this
committee and I think it would be helpful to the Senate to have the
legal views of Mr. Chadwick and also the legal views of Mr. Williams
and, consequently, I think it would be a good thing if we incorporated
the legal briefs on both sides in the record for the use of the Senate
as well as for the use of the committee, with a designation to the effect
that they do represent legal views.
I would like to make one additional observation, and that is : When
the chairman ruled he would take the evidence rather than hear the
whole oral argument of Mr. Williams on the legal question, I thought
that ruling was correct because I have spent most of my life in the
law and I have found out that, as a lawyer or as a judge, I never
could interpret the law without the facts ; that, therefore, you have to
have the facts, know what the facts are, before you can determine
what the law is and what the application of the law is. For that
reason I think the ruling of the chairman to the effect that we would
hear the evidence before passing on the point of law raised by Mr.
144 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Williams was correct because, as I say, and as Senator Stennis ex-
pressed the idea, out of the facts the law arises.
I would think it would be well for the Senate and the committee to
have the benefit of briefs on both sides, that they should be inserted
in the record and designated as legal views so that the Senate might
not arrive at the conclusion that they are anything except the legal
views presented.
The Chairman. Are there any further comments ?
At this point I think I should make this statement : That, because
of the holiday period and the vacation period, the number of people
whom we wanted to interview before we proceeded with this hearing,
we were not able to interview them or were not even able to find their
whereabouts. So, it is necessary now to postpone the public hearing
for a time.
The fact is we also have a number of very pressing matters that the
committee must take consideration of in executive session. So, there
won't be any time lost, actually.
Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Stennis.
Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman, may I say just one word about the
briefs ?
It just occurs to me the committee has the benefit of two briefs on
this matter, on the law. Neither one of them is a committee brief.
I have never seen either one of them and I am anxious to see both of
them. They will be helpful, I am sure, and then we will all perhaps
read some cases pointed out in those briefs.
The Chairman. Is it not possible. Senator, we may not agree with
either one of them ?
Senator Stennis. Yes. That is the inference. Certainly the com-
mittee has no brief and we have seen no brief, and we are anxious to
get to these major cases that may be reflected in each brief.
The Chairman. I will continue with my statement.
We will recess this hearing until 2 : 30 this afternoon.
The committee will meet in executive session immediately following
this continuance.
(Whereupon, at 11 : 35 a. m., the hearing was recessed to reconvene
at 2 : 30 p. m,, same day.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
(Thereupon, at 2: 30 p. m., the committee reconvened.)
The Chairman. The committee will be in session.
Counsel will call the witness, if it has one.
Mr. DE FuEiA. JNIr. Chairman, we have here under subpena, Mr.
Walter Winchell, and I desire that he be called and sworn.
The Chairman. Mr. Winchell, will you please come forward. Raise
your right hand and be sworn.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give in the mat-
ter now pending before the committee will be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Winchell. Yes ; I do.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 145
TESTIMONY OF WALTER WINCHELL
Mr. DE FuRiA. With the permission of the chairman, Mr. Winchell,
what is your full name, sir ?
Mr. Winchell. Walter Winchell.
Mr. DE FuMA. And your address?
Mr. Winchell. 50 West 59th Street, New York City.
Mr. DE FuRiA. What is your business or profession, Mr. Winchell ?
Mr. Winchell. Newspaper.
Mr. DE FuKiA. How long have you been in the newspaper business?
Mr. Winchell. Thirty-two years.
Mr. DE FuEiA. Were you one of the reporters, Mr. Winchell, who
covered the Army-McCarthy hearings here last May?
Mr. Winchell. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you write a column during the course of those
hearings with reference to a copy of a 21/4-page letter or document ?
Mr. Winchell. Yes ; I did.
Mr. DE FuRiA. In a column which you wrote, and which was pub-
lished, I believe, first on May 6, and later on May 9, 1954, did you say
that you had in your possession a copy of the 214-page document or
letter addressed to General Boiling ?
Mr. Winchell. Yes ; I did.
The Chairman. Mr. de Furia, I think probably you had better
identify that a little closer with any so-called security matter.
Mr. DE Furia. Yes, sir.
So that there may be no misunderstanding, Mr. Winchell, between
you and me, we are referring to a copy of a letter or document which
was produced by Senator McCarthy in the course of the hearings de-
scribed as classified information, with the words "Personal and Confi-
dential via liaison" from the FBI to General Boiling, with reference
to espionage matters at Fort Monmouth.
Are we in accord about what we are talking about ?
Mr. Winchell. Yes.
Mr. DE Furia. And you did say in a newspaper column written by
you that you had a copy of that *2i^-page letter or document in your
possession ?
Mr. Winchell. Yes.
Mr. DE Furia. When did you first obtain possession of that copy,
Mr. Winchell?
JNIr. Winchell. If you are asking the date, counsel, I am not sure,
the exact date. But it was during one of the hearings here in this
room.
Mr. DE Furia. Do you recall the first day that you wrote an article
or column, or made a radio talk referring to the fact that you had
posession of a copy ?
Mr. Winchell. Do I recall the date ?
Mr. DE Furia. Yes.
Mr. Winchell. No, sir ; I do not.
Mr. DE Furia. Can we agree that it was about May 6 ?
Mr. Winchell. Around that time ; I believe that would be correct.
Mr. DE Furia. Of this year?
Mr. Winchell. Yes.
146 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. DE FuKiA. What time of the daj^ did you receive your copy of
the 214-page document ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. I am not sure whether it was morning or afternoon,
but it was during one of the short recesses.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you receive it here in this Senate caucus room ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. Outside the Senate caucus room.
Mr. Williams. Mr. de Furia, I think if we are going to talk about
a 21/4-page document, we ought to have that document carefully iden-
tified so that we can see precisely what j'ou are referring to in your
interrogation of Mr. Winchell, so that Mr. Winchell will know exactly
what you are talking about Miien you allude, as you have 3 or 4 times
in your questioning, to a 2i/4-page document. What 214-page docu-
ment? Let's see it.
Mr. DE Furia. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, for reasons which
will become evident as I proceed with my examination, we cannot see
it, sir, and I suggest that I be permitted to continue the examination.
Mr. Williams. Unless we are talking about a 214-page document
which is subject matter germane to this inquiry, all of this questioning
is irrelevant. So I think it should be established what we are talking
about. I think that my position is very sound and I ask the Chair
to rule.
Mr. DE Furia. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Williams was not lis-
tening to me but I asked Mr. Winchell specifically whether we were
talking about the same thing and described the letter or document to
him, and I don't think there is any misconception between Mr.
Winchell and me. I don't think so. Is that correct, Mr. Winchell?
The Chairman. Mr. de Furia, I think probably you could identify
it a little further by asking Mr. Winchell whether or not he was in
the room when they were ciiscussing a certain classified document or
classified information during the course of the hearings and if that
is that particular one that he had reference to. I am certain that is
the one w» are inquiring about. That is the one that seems to be in
issue here under one of these categories.
Mr. DE Furia. Yes, sir.
Mr. Winchell, were you present during the Army-McCarthy hear-
ings when Senator McCarthy presented, or had in his possession, and
made an examination with reference to, a paper that I think he called
a letter, a 214 -page letter that was marked "Personal and Confidential"
from the FBI to General Boiling?
Mr. Winchell. Yes.
The Chairman. Does that satisfy your objection?
Mr. Williams. Obviously, unless Mr. Winchell saw the document
that was referred to during the Mundt hearings, Mr. Winchell does
not know whether the copy that he is talking about is a copy of that
document. I think Mr. de Furia must first ask Mr. Winchell if he saw
the document that Senator McCarthy referred to and that was handed
to Mr. Jenkins during that hearing. Otherwise, Mr. Winchell obvi-
ously cannot testify to whether or not what he had was a copy of it
or whether it even purported to be *a copy of it.
The Chairman. Well, it seems to me that we cannot be too technical
about this matter.
Mr. Williams. I do not want to be technical, Mr. Chairman. I just
want it to be established before this interrogation continues that Mr.
Winchell is talking about the same thing that Mr. de Furia is and I
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 147
don't see how we can establish that unless Mr. Winchell saw the docu-
ment that Senator McCarthy had in his hands that was passed to Mr.
Jenkins and it was passed back to Senator McCarthy. If he saw it, I
will withdraw my objections and we can go forward because then he
would be qualified to state whether or not the document which he had
was a copy of it ; but I don't see how in the world this witness can say
that he had a copy of a document that he never saw.
So I think it is most important that we establish whether he saw it
or not.
The Chairman. I think the nature of the — the very nature of the
document itself limits the identification. When it was before the
Mundt committee, as I recall it, very few of the committee apparently
saw it.
They didn't read it, at least, and even the Army counsel would not
read it, nor the Secretary of the Army would not read it, and I think it
was identified sufficiently so that we know what he was talking about.
It may not be of any weight. The fact of the matter is, I think
probably it will help you rather than hurt you.
Mr. Williams. We are out for all the facts, too, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I am going to rule that he may proceed and go on
with the testimony.
Mr. DE FuRiA. In what part of this building, Mr. Winchell, did you
receive that letter?
Mr. Winchell. Directly outside.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Outside of the Senate caucus room ?
Mr. Winchell. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Was that during intermission or brief period during
one of the hearings ?
Mr. Winchell. I think it was one of those brief recesses. It could
have been such, and perhaps was.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Who handed you the 2%-page letter which you said
was your copy ?
Mr. Winchell. I refuse to tell that.
Mr. DE FuRiA. On what ground do you refuse to tell it ?
Mr. Winchell. I will not reveal the source of information.
Mr. DE FuRiA. I am asking you, sir, on what grounds you refuse to
answer that question.
Mr. Winchell. On the grounds I just gave you, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Unless I am mistaken, Mr. Winchell, you have not
given me any grounds. You said you refused to answer the question.
Now, I am asking you, on what grounds do you refuse to answer ?
Mr. Winchell. I would not reveal my source of information on any
news.
Mr. DE FuRiA. You had a meeting about an hour ago with Senator
Watkins, Judge Chaclwick, and myself ; did you not, Mr. Winchell ?
Mr. Winchell. That is right.
Mr. DE FuRiA. You made certain statements to us at tliat meeting;
did you not?
Mr. Winchell. I did.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Are you shifting your position in any way from what
you told us then, to what you are telling us now ?
Mr. Winchell. No. I know that I will say what I said to you down-
stairs, at the finish, tliat I would not reveal my source of information,
even if I knew it.
148 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Tlie Chairman. Well, are you not just laboring the point a little, or
do you actually know wlio delivered it to you?
Mr. WiNCHELL. I beg pardon ?
The Chairman. Do you know wdio delivered it to you ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. I do not know. I am not sure.
The Chairman. Had you said that before, it would have saved a
lot of difficulty.
Mr. WiNCHELL. I thought I would expedite things, sir, and get to
the point.
The Chairman. Well, that was the way to get to the point, if you
did not know it, if you do not know the person who gave it to you ; and
that is what I understood you to tell us at the interview.
Mr. WiNCHELL. That is right.
The Chairman. All right; proceed.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Was your answer correct, that you are not certain
who gave you the copy ? Is that what you said, sir ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. That is correct.
Mr. DE FtJRiA. Do you have any knowledge about who gave you the
copy ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. No, as I indicated to you and Senator Watkins
downstairs.
Mr. DE FuRiA. I prefer that you answer, up here, if you will.
Mr. WiNCHELL. Well, as I explained to you gentlemen, I have re-
ceived considerable assistance from various people in this room, par-
ticularly newspaper people, some of them men I have not met before.
"Wlien they heard that I was covering the caucus room for any high-
lights and sidelights, not the usual curiosity, several of these men
offered their memos to me. They did that outside, during the recess.
Mr. DE FuRiA. So I am fair to you, sir; are you now withdrawing
your refusal to answer tlie question that I propounded to you?
Mr. WiNCHELL. If I knew, counsel, I would not tell you. That is
what I said to Senator Watkins before; and I thought I would get
right to the statement.
The Chairman. Well, of course, I say the statement is unnecessary,
because you told us you do not know; and you now say you do not
know who gave it to you.
Mr. WiNCHELL. I am not sure.
The Chairman. Did you have any idea who it was ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. I said, in your office, about an hour ago
The Chairman. You are answering, now. Forget
Mr. WiNCHELL. I am not sure. Senator. There are so many people
offering material to me ; and I believe I told you all that I was engaged
in a conversation, or listening to other people talk, directly outside this
room, and accepting offers from various people in the form of memos
— they were planning to write the business — to let them place in my
hand, sometimes just with the acknowledgement "thank you very
much," lacking time to continue with the conversation I put them into
my pocket before readhig them.
The Chairman. As I understand, you say now you cannot — you do
not know the person who gave it to you ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. Not that particular piece of paper.
The Chairman. Can you describe in more detail just how it was
handed to you — first, where, and then how ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. Outside — I beg your pardon, sir?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 149
The ChatrmajSt. Yes.
Mr. AYiNCHELL. Outside this room, right near the door, to the right
of the door — my right — I remember talking to 2 or 3 men. They were
reporters. Various people passing by handed me little memos, not
necessarily news. Some of them were messages of a personal nature ;
and I do recall getting what I believe to be this 214-page document
somewhere. It Avas folded.
The Chairmax. Somebody handed it to you while you were there ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. Somebody did, sir.
The Chairman. Did you get a full view of the person who handed
it to you ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. No, I did not.
The Chairman. And, as of now, you do not know who actually gave
it to you ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You do ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. I do not know.
The Chairman. Well, you said "Yes." I thought you meant — just
so I understand you, Mr. Winchell.
Mr. WiNCHELL. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I want to be sure whether I have given you a repe-
tition of the actual language I was developing, and I did not consider
that that question had been raised ; because I thought you misunder-
stood. I thought you always had said to us you did not know who
gave it to you ; and therefore, of course, you could not say.
Mr. WiNCPiELL. I could not swear that I did know.
The Chairman. Well, that is what you are telling us, today. You
are testifying to that.
Mr. WiNCHELL. That is right.
The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. de Furia.
INIr. DE Furia. Mr. Winchell, do I understand you to state now,
under oath, you do not know who gave you your copy of that 214-
page letter?
Mr. Winchell. Yes, sir.
Mr. de Furia. Was he in uniform or in civies ?
Mr. Winchell. I believe he was in civilian clothes.
Mr. DE Furia. A man or a woman ?
Mr. Winchell. Male.
Mr. DE Furia. Wliite or colored ?
Mr. Winchell. White.
Mr. DE Furia. About how old, Mr. Winchell ?
Mr. Winchell. I really don't know.
Mr. DE Furia. Was he a member of Senator McCarthy's staff?
Mr. Winchell. I don't think so.
Mr. DE Furia. Are you sure about it?
Mr. Winchell. I'm not sure.
Mr. DE Furia. Did you know all the members of Senator McCarthy's
staff?
Mr. Winchell. Many of them.
Mr. DE Furia. You knew Mr. Carr ?
Mr. Winchell. Yes.
Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Juliana ?
Mr. Winchell. Yes.
Mr. DE Furia. And Mr. Surine ?
150 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr, WiNCHELL. Yes.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Was it any of those?
Mr. WiNCHELL. No.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Of course, it was not Senator McCarthy who handed
it to you ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. No.
Mr, DE FuRiA. Now, were you seated or standing when it was
handed to you ?
Mr, WiNCHELL. Standing.
Mr. DE FuRiA. To whom were you talking ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. I beheve reporters.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Do you know some of the reporters? Can you
identify them, Mr. Winchell ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. I know nearly all of them in this room, or in the
room at the time, but I'm not sure who these reporters were. It
might have been Mr, Spivak of International News, It might have
been Jerry Greene or Jim Patterson of the New York Daily News —
several of them — Mr, Kempton of the New York Post.
Mr. DE FuRiA. How soon
Mr. WiNCHELL, I'm not sure any of these names I mentioned were
the ones I was talking to at the time,
Mr. DE FuRiA. How soon after you received that paper, Mr. Win-
chell, did you examine it?
Mr. WiNCHELL. Shortly after, when I sat back at the press table.
Mr, DE FuRiA. Now, I take it, sir, you heard the description of the
214-page letter as it developed during the Army-McCarthy hearings?
Mr. WiNCHELL. Yes.
Mr. DE FuRiA. That committee went into a long description of it,
comparisons. Now, did the copy that you had in your possession — did
it, or didn't it compare with the S^/^-page document as it was described
in those hearings ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. I believe the letter that I had was the same.
The Chairman. That was not quite an answer to the question. Did
it compare ?
Mr, WiNCHELL. Oh, I do not know, Senator.
The Chairman. Well, from what you heard
Mr. Winchell. I didn't see the letter.
The Chairman. I realize that, but he had already told you, de-
scribed in some detail, the remarks on it, personal and confidential,
and all that sort of thing.
Mr. WiNCHELL. Right.
The Chairman. Did this compare?
Mr. WiNCHELL. I believe it was the same letter.
The Chairman. But still you do not answer the question. Were the
same, substantial markings on this letter and the date on this letter
you heard mentioned
Mr. WiNCHELL. It was signed, I believe, by John — J. E. Hoover —
containing a list of names of enemy suspects.
Mr, DE FuRiA. Mr, Winchell, in your column didn't you state this :
The letter to General Boiling, about Reds and pro-Commies at New Jersey
Government radar places, which is being argued about, is in this columnist's pos-
session, too.
Mr, WiNCHELL. I replied I believe it is the same.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Well, is there any doubt about it, sir ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 151
Mr. WiNCHELL. I have no doubt.
Mr. DE Fdria. Then your testimony is that the copy you had, so far
as you know, was the same ; is that correct, sir?
Mr. WiNCHELL. Oh, I really believe it was a copy of the evidence
offered here.
Mr. DE FuRiA. You knew it was a classified document, did you not?
Mr. WiNCHELL. Yes.
Mr. HE FuRiA. And did you retain that document in your possession ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. Yes.
Mr. DE FuRiA. How long ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. About a week and a half.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you show it to anyone, Mr. Winchell?
Mr. WiNCHELL. No one.
Mr. DE FuRiA. No one at all ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. Nobody saw the text.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you show any part to anyone?
Mr. WiNCHELL. When I took it out of my pocket, with other papers,
to look at what I had collected during that recess, I believe I said
to the men sitting near me at the press table, about here, "Gee, look
what I have."
Mr. DE FuRL\. Wliat did you do with your copy of the 2i/4-page
letter?
Mr. WiNCHELL, I contacted John E. Hoover at once about it, or as
soon as I could get to a telephone.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Chairman, Mr, Winchell has told us about some
conversations he had with Mr. Hoover, but as I understand the rules
of evidence, I am not permitted to develop that conversation.
The Chairman. I will say this: Since the question has arisen as to
whether or not it was a copy — as I recall the testimony that has been
introduced heretofore — it has been that the exhibit was bsfore the
Army-McCarthy hearings, was taken to Mr. Hoover and he saw
that. I think maybe we can pursue this a little further with Mr.
Winchell on the question of whether he did consult Mr. Hoover about
this letter, purely on that basis, not for any other purpose, to see
whether or not it is the same letter.
Mr, Williams. 1 think if Mr, Winchell is going to say what Mr.
Hoover said, of course, his testimony would be objectionable. We
tliink Mr. Hoover should be called, under the rules of this committee.
Tlie Chairman, Well, Mr, Hoover's testimony probably would not
be direct evidence for any other purpose than to identify what Mr.
Winchell sliowed him.
Mr. Williams, I don't think INIr, Winchell is competent to tell this
committee what Mr, Hoover has said about this letter. I think only
Mr, Hoover is competent under the rules laid down by the com-
mittee that hearsay evidence would be rejected.
The Chairman, As I remember, in the other hearing, and it is also
in this record, Mr, Hoover did not appear there. He was allowed
to identify the letter and a messenger was sent out.
Mr. Williams, That committee, sir, did not purport to be operating
under the rules of evidence, though.
The Chairman, I realize that. Of course, if you do not Avant this
in the record — I say I think it is favorable to you, and we felt duty
bound to present it.
152 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The charge has been made that Senator McCarthy had permitted
this document to fall into the hands of an unauthorized person, to
wit, a gossip columnist, and we wanted to get all the evidence on
this point, and, while I recognize it is remote, if you want to object^
I suppose you can, and I am going to rule on it. It is up to you.
Mr. Williams. Well, I haven't heard a pending question. I don't
know what Mr. de Furia is seeking now.
Mr. DE Furia. May I have a moment, sir?
The Chairman. On the objection to the questioning by counsel, as-
far as Senator McCarthy is concerned, we will withhold any further
questioning on this line.
You may proceed, Mr. de Furia, on another phase of it.
Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Winchell, what did you do with the two-and-a-
quarter page copy which you had ?
Mr. Winchell. I destroyed it.
Mr. DE Furia. When did you destroy it, sir ?
Mr. Winchell. About 8 to 10 days after I had possession of it.
Mr. DE Furia. Where did you destroy it ?
Mr. Winchell. In a hotel.
Mr. DE Furia. Where?
Mr. Winchell. In the bath room of the Shoreham Hotel.
Mr. DE Furia. Which hotel?
Mr. Winchell. Shoreham.
Mr. DE Furia. Here in Washington, sir ?
Mr. Winchell. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE Furia. And how did you destroy it ?
Mr. Winchell. I burned it ; flushed it.
The Chairman. How was that?
Mr. Winchell. I burned it and flushed it.
The Chairman. You said you burned it, or flushed it ? Wliich did
you do ?
Mr. Winchell. And — I burned it and flushed it. Senator.
The Chairman. That makes quite a difference.
Mr. Winchell. Yes, it does.
Mr. DE Furia. Did you have any conversation with Senator Mc-
Carthy at any time with reference to that two-and-a-quarter page
letter after you received your copy of it ?
Mr. Winchell. I don't recall having any conversation with the
Senator about it.
Mr. DE Furia. Does that mean you may or may not have had?
Mr. Winchell. I'm pretty sure I didn't.
Mr. DE Furia. You did not ?
Mr. Winchell. I'm pretty sure I didn't.
Mr. DE Furia. All right.
Were any copies made of that two-and-a-quarter-page letter from
your copy?
Mr. Winchell. Not from my copy ; no, sir.
Mr. DE Furia. Are you sure of that?
Mr. Winchell. I'm positive. Nobody saw it but me.
Mr. DE Furia. And it was in your exclusive possession ?
Mr. Winchell. In my possession. I didn't even show it to Mr.
Hoover. I just told him I had it.
Mr. DE Furia. Are you sure about that, that you didn^t show it to
Mr. Hoover ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 153
Mr. WiNCHELL, I think I took it out of my pocket and said, "I have
that letter, John."
Mr. DE FuRiA. Then you may have shown it to him ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. Well, that way, without showing, revealing the text.
Mr. DE FuRLv. Now, I ask you again : Are you sure that you didn't
show it to Mr. Hoover ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. I'm pretty sure I did not show it to Mr. Hoover.
Mr. DE FuEiA. All right, but to be fair with you, 3 ou may have and
don't remember ; is that right ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. I don't recall doing that, counselor.
Mr. DE FuRiA. All right.
The Chairman. Let me ask you this question : Didn't you go to Mr.
Hoover to see whether or not it was proper for you to use it ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And he told you it wasn't proper to use it ?
Mr. AViNCHELL. I said, "John, I have a copy"
The Chairman. No.
Mr. WiNCHELL. "Of that letter."
The Chairman. I am only asking that one question. You v/ent
there for the purpose of finding out whether you could use it or not,
whether it was classified or not ; isn't that the fact?
Mr. WiNCHELL. I guess you are right about that.
The Chairman. And after you talked with him, you didn't use it?
Mr. WiNCHELL, Yes, sir; I did not use it.
The Chairman. How could he determine whether it was a copy or
not and classified confidential unless you had shown it to him?
Mr. WiNCHELL. I beg your pardon.
The Chairman. I sa}-, How could he determine and see that it was
classified without seeing it, without you showing it to him?
Mr. WiNCHELL. May I, Senator, tell you what the conversation
was?
The Chairman. No; we can't. Counsel objected. I think it was
in their favor, but they objected. So I am not going to let you tell
that conversation.
Mr. WiNCHELL. They published the conversation. That is a matter
of public record.
Mr. Williams. I don't have any objection to this, if you want to
pursue it.
The Chairman. All right. You tell us what Mr. Hoover told you.
Mr. WiNCHELL. I said, "John, I hav.e a copy of that letter."
I assumed he knew what I was talking about, because it had been
on the television and radio, in the papers, all afternoon. His name
had been bandied about considerabl}^, and that letter.
The Chairman. You made it known that you had it ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. I said, "I have a copy of that letter, John. I want
to ask you something."
I said, "Would you arrest me if I published it?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "You're kidding, John."
He said, "No ; I am not."
That was the end of the conversation.
The Chairman. Well, now, as a matter of fact, you did not let him
see the letter to be sure that it was the same one, did you ?
154 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. WiNCMELL. I could not swear that I showed him the letter. I
wish I could tell you I had. I cannot recall doing that. I am trying
to recapture the scene at the table in the restaurant.
The CiTAiRMAisr. Do you think Mr. Hoover would take it for granted
that you had a copy of that letter without looking at it?
Mr. WiNCHELL. Would he take it for granted ?
The Chairman. Without looking at it.
Mr. WiNCHELL. I do not know whether he believed that I had it
or not. He answered mv question because I asked him if he would
arrest me, and he said, "Yes."
The Chairman. That was based on the fact that it was a classified
document and you had a copy of a classified document, is that right?
Mr. WiNCHELL. That is right.
The Chairman. That is all I have.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Ervin.
Senator Ervin. I want to be certain I understood the testimony
with reference to the receipt of this document.
Do you swear that you are certain that you do not know who handed
you this document?
Mr. WiNCHELL. That is right, sir.
Senator Ervin. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. de Furia.
Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Winchell, Senator McCarthy had a copy of the
two-and-one-quarter page letter, as I understand it, and you had
one also. Is tliat right? Do you know of any other copies in exist-
ence, of your own knowledge ?
The Chairman. Out of your own knowledge, now, remember.
Mr. WiNCHELL. I do not remember.
Mr. DE Furia. Did you see any others while you were here, or
since that time ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. No.
Mr. DE Furia. Of your own knowledge, you do not know that any
other than the two letters were in existence? Is that correct, sir?
Mr. WiNCHELL. That is correct. I had heard that there were 35
distributed to the other newspaper people.
Mr. DE Furia. That is what we lawyers call hearsay so far as you
are concerned.
Mr. WiNCHELL. I told you that before, and I offer it again for
background.
The Chairman. Do any other members of the committee wish to
ask any questions ?
Mr. Williams, you may proceed.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Winchell, just so that we can understand
your testimony, as I understand you, you were dowm here covering
the so-called Army-McCarthy hearings in May of 1954.
Mr. WiNCHELL. Yes, I was.
Mr. Williams. And on May 4, 1954, while you were seated out
here covering the hearings, there was reference made by Senator
McCarthy to a letter which purj^ortedly bore the typed name of
J. Edgar Hoover as tlie sender ; is that right ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. Yes, sir.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 155
Mr. Williams. And that letter, you recall, do you not, Mr.
Wincliell, was passed on May 4, 1954, by Senator McCarthy up to
Ray Jenkins, counsel for the committee?
Mr. WiNCHELL. That is right.
Mr. Williams. Ray Jenkins retained possession of that letter
for a time and thereafter, you recall, do you not, Mr. Winchell, that
he returned it to Senator McCarthy ?
jMr. Winchell. Yes, and I believe it was received and unread
and unopened by anyone on that committee.
Mr. Williams. As a matter of fact, at no time during the hear-
ings while you were present were the contents of that letter made
known ?
Mr. Winchell. I know of no one at any time revealing the con-
tents.
]Mr. Williams. So that as a newspaperman sitting at the table
covering the hearings, you were in precisely the same position as
everybody else in the room except Senator McCarthy and Kay
Jenkins ? You did not know what was in that memorandum or that
letter.
Mr. Winchell. I eventually read it.
Mr. Williams. Did you read the document, Mr. Winchell?
Mr. Winchell. Oh, I beg your pardon. I meant to say that I read
the copy I had. I did not see the purported original or whatever it
was up there.
Mr. Williams. At no time during the hearings were the contents
of that document made known.
Mr. Winchell. Would you please repeat that ?
Mr. Williams. At no time during the hearings were the contents
of that document made known.
Mr. Winchell. I do not believe so.
Mr. Williams. The only thing that was disclosed about that docu-
ment was that it was a docimient which purported to be from J. Edgar
Hoover to General Boiling, and that it was a memorandum on 3 pages ;
is that right ?
Mr. Winchell. That is right.
Mr. Williams. Now, as I understand your testimony, thereafter
you received a copy, or you rec;eived a document from someone whose
identity you do not know, and that that document also was a document
which bore the name J. Edgar Hoover as sender and, as recipient,
General Boiling.
Mr. Winchell. Tliat is right.
Mr. Williams. And apart from that point of similarity, you know;
of no other similarity between what you had and what was referred to
in the record of the Army-McCarthy hearings ?
Mr. Winchell. That is true.
Mr. Williams. So that you are unable to say here under oath, in
response to Mr. de Furia's questioning, you are unable to say under
oath that you ever had in your possession a true copy of the document
just discussed at such gi-eat length of 3 days during the Mundt inquiry,
are you ?
Mr. Winchell. No.
Mr. Williams. Now, you said in response to Mr. de Furia's question
that Senator McCarthy did not give you what you had in the way of
a memorandum. Let us call what you had the Winchell document
52461—34 11
156 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
and let lis call the one at issue in this hearing the hearing document or
the Mundt document, the Mundt-Jenkins-Army document.
Mr. WiNCHELL. Counsel, as I testified, I did not take a very good
look at this person, although I knew it was a male, but I am sure that
if you contacted the people to whom I showed this copy, that they
might be helpful. I don't know. I mean at the press table.
Mr. Williams. They might be helpful ?
Mr. WiNCiiELL. Or any one of the other reporters, ladies of the press
who might have seen people or a person passing things to me, to certify
to me that it was or it was not Senator McCarthy. I do not know.
Mr. Williams. But you have testified in response to a question that
it was not Senator McCarthy who gave you this document.
Mr. WiNCHELL. I am pretty sure that it was not Senator McCarthy.
I am pretty sure that if Senator McCarthy approached me and handed
me something, I am pretty sure somebody would have seen that.
Mr. Williams. And likewise, to the best of j^our recollection and to
the best of your knowledge, it was not a member of his staff?
Mr, AViNCHELL. That is right.
Mr. Williams. Now that we have established, Mr. Winchell, No. 1',
that this document to which you have made reference here today
and to which Mr. de Furia has made reference cannot be shown
to have been a copy of the document that is germane to this inquiry,
and to the best of your recollection you did not get it from Senator
McCarthy or any of his staff, let me ask you this: The fact of the
matter is that you did not ever show your, what I call the Winchell
document to John Edgar Hoover and say, "Look this over, John, and
let me know if I can use it," did you?
Mr. Winchell. No, I did not.
INIr. Williams. In other words, you simply said to John Edgar
Hoover, "John, I have a copy of that 'hot document,' as Ray Jenkins
'ised to call it, and is it all right if I publish it." Is that right?
Mr. Winchell. Will you arrest me if I publish it, is what I said.
Mr. Williams. Yes, "Would you arrest me?".
So that when you said that to Mr. Hoover, Mr. Hoover's answer
was directed to whether or not you could publish the document about
which there was so much discussion and so much discussion had been
held in the Army-McCarthy hearings, is that right?
Mr. Winchell. That is right.
Mr. Williams. And he did not look at what you had in your hand ?
Mr. Winchell. No, he accepted my question. He simply said,
"Yes, I will arrest you."
Mr. Williams. He simply said, "Yes, I will arrest you," is that
right?
Mr. Winchell. That is right.
Mr. Williams. The fact of the matter is that even your so-called,
what we will call the Winchell document did not have security in-
formation in it, did it, Mr. Winchell?
Mr. Winchell. In my opinion it was not security information.
Mr. Williams. As a matter of fact, Mr. Winchell, what you had in
your possession clearly indicated such portions as could have been
security matters had been removed, did it not?
Mr. Winchell. I believe so.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 157
Mr. WiT.LiAMS. So tlicat yon simply had — the Winchell document —
was simply in the form of a letter from which had been removed those
things which might affect in any way security measures?
Mr. WiN^CHELL. I believe that is true.
Mr. Williams. I have no further questions.
The CuMRMAiSr. Since you have made those statements, I wish you
would tell us, and tell the committee just why you did believe, and
why you said that it was a copy of the two-and-a-fourth page letter
that had been classified as a security document. Give us your reason.
We would like to know why you said it in your publication.
Mr. Winchell. From hearing the charges and explanations across
the table at which you are sitting now. Senator, I have no reason to
doubt that what I had was not an exact copy of what had been pre-
sented to the Senate committee.
The Chairman. You remember you told me something about having
"Personal and Confidential" about the top of the letter that you had?
Mr. Winchell. That I had what, sir?
The Chairman. That it was written in red across the top of it,
"Personal and Confidential."
Mr. Winchell. "Persojial and Confidential," and John Edgar
Hoover's signature, I think.
The Chairman. Signature?
Mr. Winchell. Typewritten.
The Chairman. Typewritten?
Mr. Winchell. This was the copy.
Incidentally, Senator, I just recall some of the people to whom I
had revealed this part [indicating] in opening it up that much, just
the top, and the huge letters "C-o-p-y" in red and perhaps a line at
the top to the left, "Personal and Confidential," and perhaps the
date over here.
I think that Mr. Green of the New York Daily News, who was
sitting on my right, he may have seen it. He was closest to me. I
don't know whether I showed it to Mr. Spivak of International News,
or to Miss McKee, also of International News Service, but they might
corroborate that I did have what I believed to be a copy of what
was in evidence here.
The Chairman. You have given us now all the reasons why you
thought you were right in saying it was a copy ?
Mr. Winchell. I was trying to.
The Chairman. You were so sincere about it that you published it
in your column without equivocation or ifs and ancls?
Mr. Winchell. I believed that it was a true copy.
The Chairman. I see.
We just wanted to be sure that you had given the committee all
your reasons for believing it was. We wanted to clear up this inci-
dent. It was one of those matters charged, and we wanted to get the
statement on it, and you seemed to be the logical person to make the
explanation.
Mr. Winchell. Also, sir, I think that during the testimony, it was
either Mr. Cohn or somebody else testifying, that he named one
name in this list of suspects. He described this name as one who had
already appeared in the headlines in the role of a Communist agent,
and that the others had never been known before, and this coincided
with the copy I had.
158 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Chairman, I avouIcI like to have the names of
the newspapermen or newspaperwomen who may have seen Mr.
Wincliell's copy. You said Mr. Green ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. Counsel, I did not show the text to anyone.
Mr. DE FuRiA. I understand, sir.
Mr. WiNCHELL. I just opened it up like that [indicating] and he
probably took a look out of the corner of his eye and went on about
his business. I don't knoAv. I didn't turn around.
Mr. DE FuRiA. I missed 1 or perhaps 2 names. Mr. Green
Mr. WiNCHELL. Jerry Green, of the New York News, was on my
right. In front of me, to my right, Jimmy Patterson.
Mr. DE FuRiA. James?
Mr. WiNCHELL. James Patterson, of the New York News, and
Jerry Green, of the same newspaper.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Jerry Green?
Mr. WiNCHELL. Jerry Green, James Patterson.
Mr. DE FuRiA. And James Patterson. You mentioned a Mr. Spivak.
Mr. WiNCHELL. Spivak was seated 2 or 3 from me; I may have
turned it around and said, "Look." I don't know that I did. I think
I did.
Mr. DE FtJRiA. Did you say a Miss McKee?
Mr. WiNCHELL. She may have been at the table at the time. Some
of the reporters had to get up and leave and go and file copy a great
deal of the time.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Now, sir, I have four names. Are there any more?
Mr. WiNCHELL. I offer those to help you decide Avhether I had any-
thing that may have been a copy of the letter in controversy here.
Mr. DE FuRiA. What Avas the color of the paper you had ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. White.
■ Mr. DE FuRiA. Was it copy paper, or regidar Avhite paper, letter
paper ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. It Avas — I don't knoAv the name of it. It is a Avliite,
very thin tissue.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Was it legal cap size, or octa\'o size ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. It Avas this size [holding up sheet of yellow paper].
Mr. DE FuRiA. Regular business letterhead size.
Mr. WiNCHELL. Yes.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you see in the audience here today any person
Avho had another copy of that letter?
Mr. WiNCHELL. That isn't clear to me. Counsel.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Do you see among the neAvspapermen or newspaper-
Avomen here in' this room anyone Avho had another copy of the 214-
page letter?
Mr. WiNCHELL. I never knew that any of them had. I have heard
that 35 copies had been distributed — not. Counsel, not mainly to people
in this room, but to heads of neAvspaper services and neAvspapers in
Washington and New York City.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Case.
Senator Case. Mr. Winchell, the copy that you had, Avas that a
mimeographed copy, or Avas it a carbon copy ?
Mr. Winchell. A carbon.
Senator Case. And you heard that there Avere some 35 copies that
had been distributed?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 159
Mr. WiNCHELL. I had later lieard — oh, a good week or so after —
and I liad already told this to Senator Watkins and Mr. Chadwick and
the counsel in his office earlier today.
The Chairman. The reason we didn't ask about it was that we
thought it was hearsay.
Mr. WiNCHELL. Well, mine was hearsay, Senator.
The Chairmax. What was that ? .
Mr. WiNCiiELL. Mine was hearsay.
The Chairman. What you are saying now is hearsay.
Mr. WiNCHELL. I think I prefaced it by telling you that the man
himself was a notable publisher of a newspaper.
The Chairman. You do not need to go into the whole thing. I
thought it was hearsay, and tliat is the reason I didn't ask you about it.
Mr. WiNCHELL. I see.
Answering your question, Senator, this source told me that he had
heard that 35 of the same, copies of the same letter, had been
distributed in high places or newspapers.
The Chairman. Senator Case, are you through ?
Senator Case. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Stennis.
Senator Stennis. Mr. Winchell, according to this stamp that was
on this paper that you testified about, you say it was stamped "Per-
sonal and Confidential"?
Mr, Winchell. Typewritten.
Senator Stennis. Typewritten. I got the idea a while ago that it
was a stamp that had been impressed on there.
Mr. Winchell. It was typewritten, sir.
Senator Stennis. In the same way, apparently, as the body of the
instrument was?
Mr. Winchell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stennis. And the name, J. Edgar Hoover, was stamped or
typewritten ?
Mr. Winchell. Typewritten.
Senator Stennis. Was there any kind of a marking on it indicat-
ing a committee file number or stamp or any indication of that kind ?
Mr. Winchell. I am pretty sure not, sir.
Senator Stennis. This person that handed this paper to you, was
that someone that you had then known, someone you then knew, and
had forgotten who it was, or some person you never did know ?
Mr. Winchell. One I didn't take^a good look at. It was handed
to me folded in half, among the things like that [showing folded piece
of paper] would be handed to me if I was busy talking to some-
one and somebody who didn't want to wait, and this was handed
to me by a male whose face I didn't get a good look at. I assume it
was somebody who wanted to be helpful with some trivia.
Senator Stennis. Was it your impression, then, that this party is
a stranger to me, or was it your impression that it was just one of
the boys around the table?
Mr. Winchell. I think it was just somebody who wanted to pass
along
Senator Stennis. Would you recognize that person now if he were
brought before you ?
Mr. Winchell. I certainly would, I think.
Senator Stennis. You think you would ?
160 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. WiNCHELL. I have g^one down tlie list of all the people it may
have been, and eliminated; but there were 1 or 2 others that I have
not seen.
Senator Stennis. You would not mind identifying that person if
he were brought before you?
Mr. WiNCHELL. I would like it for my own curiosity. If I knew
the source, I would not reveal it to this committee.
Senator Stennis. I beg your pardon?
Mr. WiNCHELL. If I knew the source, I would not reveal it to this
committee.
Senator Stennis. You w^ouldn't mind identifying the person if
the person was brought before you ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. I could not identify him publicly ; I would know
myself that that was the one; I think I would.
Senator Stennis. Does this privilege that you claim, you think,
extend to a paper that the I'BI Director told you that you would be
subject to arrest for if you published it?
Mr. WiNCHELL. That question eludes me.
Senator Stennis. Do you think that the privilege that you claim
extends to a paper or a document that you would be arrested for if
you had published it ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. Senator, I do not claim any privilege. I have just
made a statement. I said I would not reveal any source of infor-
mation.
Senator Stennis. But you say on your oath that you do not know
who this person was ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Any further questions ?
Mr. DE FuRiA. I have a question or two, Mr. Chairman, please.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Winchell, the words "Personal and Confiden-
tial," were they in red or black ink on your copy ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. The only thing red, as I recall, was the word "copy."
Mr. DE FuRiA. Do I assume that the words "Personal and Confiden-
tial" were in black ink or dark blue or blue?
Mr. WiNCHELL. I believe so.
Mr. DE FuRiA, Do you know anybody who knows who is the person
who handed you the 2i/4-page document?
Mr. WiNCHELL. Do I know anyone who knows the source of any
information ?
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes, sir.
Mr. WiNCHELL. No ; I do not.
Mr. DE FuEiA. Do you know any way that this committee can iden-
tify the man who gave you the 214-page document?
Mr. WiNCHELL. No ; I do not.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Have you seen the man who gave you the 214-page
letter since about May 4, I believe, or May 6, whatever the date was,
between that time and today ; have you seen that person ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. I haven't seen him again.
Mr. DE FuRiA. You have not seen him again ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. I know that he doesn't work for the McCarthy com-
mittee, because I went over that list.
Mr. DE FuRiA. I am not asking whether he worked for the McCarthy
committee, but have you seen him ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 161
Mr. WiNCHELL. No ; I have not, sir.
Mr. DE FuBiA. Have you tried to find out who he was ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. I did when I was covering the story down here. I
kept looking around the room nnd down the corridor and various
places and seeing if I could find the man that I thought might be one
of them that would have passed something to me.
There had been several, as I told you, and Senator Watkins, in the
office, who had been running errands every day for others, some people
around the committee table, others among the spectators, who would
pass along messages to me, and I tried to recap the various people,
some of the ladies who were running errands for the Senate committee
at the time, and I felt pretty sure that none of these people were the
ones ; and yet I did not take a very good look at the person who passed
me the j^aper. It was not the only piece of paper that I received in
the corridor at that time.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Chairman, they are all the question from the
committee counsel, sir.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions?
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Case.
Senator Case. Mr. Winchell, was there a red border on the copy
that you had on the cover page ?
Mr. AViNCHELL. No, the only thing red. Senator, was the word
"copy" in very huge letters.
Senator Case. Do you recall whether or not there was any imprint
on the cover page which started out with the word "Confidential,"
then followed with any warning or caution against the disclosure of
the contents of the material within ?
Mr. WiNCHELL. I am sure, Senator, there was no warning among
those lines.
Senator Case. In other words
Mr. WiNCHELL. It wosn't even marked "Secret." It was just called
"Personal-Confidential," just between us.
I wish you all could see this.
Senator Case. On occasion, I have seen a few confidential papers.
They generally have wo.rning notices on them, frequently in red, with
red border. And I am trying to determine merely whether or not
what you had was a copy which had been prepared in that manner,
or whether it was simply a carbon copy. This word "copy" that you
referred to, would you judge that that was the label on the paper that
was used just as a second sheet might 1be labeled "copy"?
Mr. WiNCHELL. No, sir; it seemed to be stationery that was just
made for copies and it v/as so distinctly marked.
I think, too, that it wasn't solid : that there were lines for the C,
and two lines to make an O, and so on — like sort of a red border for the
C, with white space.
Senator Case. Was the paper a tissue paper, such as is used for
making carbon copies?
Mr. WiNCHELL. Yes, what they call fishskin.
Senator Case. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Are there any farther ouestions?
If not, you will be excused, Mr. Winchell.
Mr. WiNCHELL. Thank you, sir.
162 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. DE FuRiA. Thank you on behalf of the committee counsel, Mr.
Winchell.
The Chairman. We thank you for coming because this matter had
to be cleared up one way or the other. We wanted to get all the facts
we could relevant to the matter.
Mr. Winchell. Thank you.
The Chairman. I assume it will be too much to ask if there are any
witnesses among the newspaper people, or others, who saw the man
who delivered this letter to Mr. AVinchell. You can volunteer after
the meeting, if you wish to, and let us have your name in order to make
a complete record of the event.
We would like get someone wlio could identify the person who
actually gave you that instrument.
Mr. Winchell. Yes, sir.
Am I excused now ?
The Chairman. You are excused.
Mr. Winchell. Thank you.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I make no formal motion at this time,
but I think in the interest of having a wholly relevant record, the
Chair might consider in its wisdom striking the testimony that has
just been heard, for these reasons :
Mr. Winchell, under any rules of evidence, has not identified the
document which he had in his possession with the document which is
in question in this hearing.
Regardless of how loose the rules of evidence may be, there is no
identification. There is no tying up of these two documents as being
the same or similar.
No. 2, Mr. Winchell, in his testimony, has made quite clear that his
recollection of the events, as I understand his testimony, that neither
Senator McCarthy, nor anyone identified with him, gave this docu-
ment to Mr. Winchell so that his testimony becomes, insofar as the
issues in this case are concerned, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely believe,
very irrelevant.
I do not make any formal motion because I think whether his testi-
mony stands, or does not, is a matter pretty much of indifference to us,
but I think in the interest of a clean record, relevant, germane testi-
mony, the chairman might consider striking it.
The Chairman. I admit that it is not very direct evidence with
reference to this document. When it was before the committee in the
first place, it seemed to be rather illusive, and if the testimony that
Mr. Winchell has given here is somewhat indefinite and value, it is
not much more vague than the situation was before the committee —
I mean the Army-McCarthy committee — and we can give whatever
weight we think should be attached to it.
But we felt, as I said once before, that since this charge had been
made, it would be our duty to get all the evidence, no matter how light
in weight it might be, with respect to this particular matter.
We have exhausted every resource in trying to discover whether
there was any truth in that charge, or not, and this is the only
evidence we have been able to find and such as it is, we have presented
it, and I think it ought to stay in the record for whatever it is worth.
At this point, I will state that our counsel advises us that with the
introduction of the testimony just now concluded, the testimony with
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 163
respect to point 3 is, as at present, completed ; and the staff has nothing
further to offer on points 1, 2, 4, and 5.
However, at the executive committee meeting this morning, uncer-
tainty remained as to what other testimony might be taken this
afternoon. It was agreed by the committee that for the convenience
of both counsel for the committee and for Senator McCarthy, that this
meeting would be recessed now, and that we would convene tomorrow
at 10 a. m., at which time Senator McCarthy will go on with his
presentation.
The foregoing is subject to the reservation that the committee may
reopen the hearings at any time, particularly as to matters developing
or being developed at the hearings. In other words, this is not exactly
as a court trial where, when you rest, you are through unless you can
show some mistake or something of that sort, but we are interested in
getting all the evidence, no matter whom it helps or hurts in this
matter, and if certain matters develop in the hearing, in the presenta-
tion by Senator McCarthy, whatever he is to present under the rules
set forth, then we don't want to be precluded by anything we have said
here from going on further and developing any new leads that might
be shown to exist.
The committee will now be in recess until tomorrow morning at
10 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 3: 30 p. m., the hearing was recessed until tomor-
row, Wednesday, September 8, 1954, at 10 a. m.)
HEAEINGS ON SENATE EESOLUTION 301
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1954
United States Senate,
Select Committee To Study Censure Charges Pursuant
TO Senate Order on Senate Resolution 301,
Washington^ D. C.
The select committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 :10 a. m., in the
caucus room, 318 Senate Office Building, Senator Arthur V. Watkins
(chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Watkins (chairman), Johnson (vice chairman),
Carlson, Case, Stennis, and Ervin.
Also present : Senator McCarthy ; E, Wallace Chadwick, counsel to
the committee ; Guy G. de Furia, assistant counsel to the committee ;
John M. Jex, clerk of the committee; John W. Wellman, staff mem-
ber ; Frank Ginsburg and Ray R. McGuire, members of Senator Wat-
kins' staff on loan to the committee; and Edward Bennett Williams,
counsel to Senator McCarthy, with his associates, Agnes A. Neill and
Brent Bozell.
The Chairman. The committee will be in session.
We will ask the photographers to desist in the taking of pictures. .
Mr. Williams, you may proceed.
Mr. Williams. JNIr. Chairman, will you call Gen. Kirke Lawton,
please ?
The Chairman. General Lawton, will you please come to the stand ?
Raise your right hand and be sworn. Do you solemnly swear the
testimony you will give in the matter now pending before this com-
mittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God ?
General Lawton. I do.
TESTIMONY OF MAJ. GEN. KIEKE B. LAWTON, ACCOMPANIED BY
HIS COUNSEL, JOHN E. PERNICE
The Chairman. For the purpose of the record, give us your full
name and your address.
General Lawton. Maj. Gen. Kirke B. Lawton, retired; mailing
address care of Fort Monmouth, N. J.
I would like to introduce at this time Mr. John E. Pernice —
P-e-r-n-i-c-e — who is the Chief of the Legal Division of the Chief
Signal Officer of the Army, who I have asked to come here this morn-
ing with me as counsel.
The Chairman. You came here this morning under subpena ?
General Lawton. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Mr. Williams, you may direct the examination.
165
166 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. Thank you, sir.
General, how long were you in the United States Army prior to
your retirement ?
General Lawton. Thirty-seven years, sir.
Mr. Williams. When did you retire, sir ?
General Lawton. August 31, 1954.
Mr. Williams. What was your last post of command ?
General Lawton. Fort Monmouth, N. J.
Mr. Williams. When did you take over as commanding general of
that post ?
General Lawton. December 19, 1951.
Mr. Williams. And for how long did you fill the position as Com-
manding General of Fort Monmouth ?
General Lawton. Until March 24, 1954.
Mr. Williams. And thereafter, where were you assigned?
General Lawton. Oh, I was on a combination of hospital, Walter
Reed, and on sick leave, back at Fort Monmouth.
Mr. Williams. Were you Commanding General of Fort Monmouth
at the time when the Senate Investigating Committee conducted an
investigation there of subversion?
General Lawton. I was.
Mr. Williams. And can you fix that in point of time ?
General Lawton, October 1953.
Mr. Williams. The month of October 1953 ?
General Lawton. Yes.
Mr. Williams, And for how long did that investigation, to your
knowledge, continue ?
General Lawton. Well, there were closed sessions at which I at-
tended some in October. I attended no more. I remember reading
in the press there were more closed sessions and then there were some
open hearings in December of employees from Fort Monmouth, I
would say, from the press, December of 1953. It may have continued.
Mr. Williams. Do you know Brig. Gen. Ralph Zwicker?
General Lawton. I do,
Mr. Williams. What w^as his post of command in 1953 ?
General Lawton. Camp Kilmer, N. J.
Mr. Williams, Now, directing your attention, General Lawton, to
December of 1953, did you have a conversation, sir, with Brig, Gen.
Ralph Zwicker at Camp Kilmer ?
General Lawton. I did.
The Chairman. Can you fix the time more definitely than that, Mr.
Williams?
Mr. Williams. I will ask the General to fix it for us.
General Lawton. I don't think I can. It was, I would say, late
November, early December. I had occasion to go to his post on another
matter, and I was half an hour early, I called on him, as a courtesy
call, as a post commander, and I think it was the first time I had
met him,
Mr, Williams, And you fix that in the month of of December,
General ?
General Lawton. Or late November.
Mr. Williams. Now, on that occasion, did you have a conversation
with him regarding Senator McCarthy and the work of the Senate
Permanent Investigating Committee at Fort Monmouth?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 167
General Lawton. I will have to respectfully decline to answer that
question on the basis of the Presidential directive of May 17, 1954,
regulations based upon that which prohibits members of the executive
department from revealing conversations between employees thereof.
Mr. Williams. Do I understand, sir, that you refuse to answer the
question which is directed to the substance of your conversation with
General Zwicker?
General Lawtoist. That is correct.
Mr. Williams. And I understand you base your refusal on the
order of May 17 ?
General Lawton. Yes.
Mr. Williams. Do you have a copy of that order with you. General ?
General Lawton. I haven't; no.
Mr. Williams. Don't you know. General, that order of May 17,
1954, referred only to the Government Operations Committee and the
hearing then in session which was commonly known as the Army-
McCarthy hearing ?
General Lawton. I recall exactly what you say, but I have taken
advice from counsel and other sources and after that counsel, it is
my belief that that directive not only applied to the so-called Mundt
committee but it applies to this or any other; and, therefore, I still
would have to respectfully decline.
Mr. Williams. General, will you tell this committee, counsel, and
myself, with whom you talked about this since Monday night?
General Lawton. I will have to respectfully decline to answer that
one on the basis that the same directive — conversations between two
employees of the executive
The Chairman. May I interrupt there a moment, Mr. Williams?
Do you have a copy of that directive?
Mr. Williams. I know what the directive says. I don't have a copy
of it.
General Lawton. My counsel has a copy of it.
The Chairman. I would like to see a copy, and I think members of
the committee would before we rule on this line of questioning.
Mr. Williams. Do you have an extra copy of it there. General ?
General Lawton. No ; I haven't.
Mr. Williams. Senator Watkins, may I look at it with you ? May
I look at that directive, please ?
The Chairman. Yes; you may. I will advise you, however, that
it was placed in the record yesterday as a part of the statement of
our counsel, Mr. Chad wick, who so advises me now. It appears at
page 359 of yesterday's record. You are welcome to look at it, here,
if you wish.
(A copy of the document referred to was handed to Mr. Williams.)
The Chaiiuman. Tliere is nothing at the moment requiring a ruling
by the Chair, so we will proceed.
Mr. Williams. I believe the last question that I directed to General
Lawton was whether or not he was predicating his refusal to answer
on this order ; and then, following that, when he said "Yes," I asked
him if he had had a conversation yesterday with anyone in the De-
partment of the Army on this matter. That was the pending question,
I believe.
General Lawton. I saw counsel for various periods yesterday.
168 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. You talked to Mr. Brooker, the General Counsel of
the Department of Defense ; did you not ?
General Lawton. I will have to respectfully decline to answer that
one, on the same basis.
Mr. Williams. Asa matter of fact, prior to your conversation with
Mr. Brooker, you were prepared to testify on this subject which I am
now interrogating you on ; is not that the fact ?
General Lawton. The difference in the status between an active-
duty officer and a retired officer, I have never been interested in or
familiar with. I was under the impression that there Avas some, or
there was more leeway as a retired officer ; and it might be that your
statement is relatively true. But, to make sure, I never cross bridges
until I come to them, and so, to make sure, before I appeared here,
I did yesterday consult several counsel as to what regulations I am
now operating under as a retired officer ; and as a result of those con-
ferences with counsel, I am of the opinion that I cannot answer that
question.
Mr. Williams. Can you tell us. General, this much : Is it not the
fact that counsel with whom 3'ou consulted yesterday was Army coun-
sel or Defense Department counsel ?
General Lawton. Yes. One of them is right here.
Mr. Williams. As a matter of fact, Mr. Pernice is chief counsel,
as I understood, and the chief officer, the chief counsel for the Signal
Corps. Now, General, do I understand that you will refuse to testify
with respect to any conversations that you may have had with Gen-
eral Zwicker, on any subject, and particularly with respect to the
subject at issue here today ?
General Lawton. I will discuss that. I met him, and we passed the
time of day away, and followed ball games, perhaps, and athletics and
things like that. But the official answer is, I must respectfully de-
cline to answer.
Mr. Williams. You did tell me the substance of your conversation
with General Zwicker, Monday night, did you not ?
General Lawton. I did discuss the conversation with you; yes.
Mr. Williams. And you told me the substance of it?
General Lawton. Yes.
Mr. Williams. Now, Mr. Chairman, may I say this, sir? Here I
think we have a very, very cogent illustration of what this case is all
about. We have a witness here on the stand who has information that
is relevant and germane to tliis inqur}''; and I, as a matter of fact,
outlined to the committee, in executive session, in a very cursory way,
what that evidence was, on yesterday; and now we find the Depart-
ment of Defense gagging this witness on the basis, I say, Mr. Chair-
man, of altogether incompetent advice. It is either incompetent ad-
vice, or it is not even in good taste, because General Lawton — and I
mean no criticism whatsoever of him, and I do not want my remarks
to be construed that way, because I have the highest respect for him — I
say that to the full committee — but General Lawton is obviously act-
ing under orders, and those orders are either so predicated or in-
competent, that is, or advice that is not given in good faith, because
his attention is directed to an Executive order of May 17, 1954 ; and
he is told that he may not testify on this inquiry, on the basis of that
order.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 169
The order says — and it is signed by the President, sent to the Sec-
retary of Defense —
You will instruct employees of your Department that in all of their appear-
ances before the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Government Opera-
tions regarding the inquiry now before it, they are not to testify to any such
conversations or communications or to produce any such documents or repro-
ductions.
I quote it exactly. In other words, an order which counsel for the
Army has told General Lawton binds him, is an order which relates
only to the Government Operations Committee, in the ino.uiry pend-
ing as of May 17, 1954, which was the inquiry regarding Secretary
Stevens, Senator McCarthy, and others ; and this order has no appli-
cability, no relationship in the world to the inquiry which is presently
pending. Furthermore
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman
Mr. Williams. I would like to say this, if I may-
The Chairman. Senator Case, will you wait a minute, until Mr.
Williams has finished?
Mr. Williams. I may say this, Mr. Chairman, and I will be
through. The information that I seek to elicit from General Lawton
has no more relationship to national security or national defense than
the price of yogurt. It is totally, totally irrelevant to any questions
of security or defense ; and it is absurd to say that such a conversation
could be blocked from this inquiry.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman •
Mr. Williams. And I say this : I have no criticism whatsoever, and
I do not want my remark to be construed as such ; rather it is directed
at the persons who, I say, gave him this wholly incompetent advice.
The Chairman. There is just one inquiry I want to make of him,
Mr. Williams. I understood you to say that he received an order
from the Defense Department, or from Defense officials, who have not
testified. Of course, what he said, as I recall it — and I think the record
will show that I am right — was that he sought advice, and, on the
advice of counsel, he declines to answer, because he thinks it would
be a violation of that order.
Mr. Williams. Is the Chair ruling that
The Chairman. I have not ruled yet. Senator Case wished to be
heard. I wanted to let you finish, first, and then I wanted to call that
to your attention. And, now, I will recognize Senator Case.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, I note that counsel said that he was
giving an exact reproduction of the passage from the letter of the
President. I will ask counsel if he read the entire sentence.
Mr. Williams. Are you directing your attention to me ?
Senator Case. I am.
Mr. Williams. No; I did not. I did not read the entire sentence,
but I shall be glad to.
Senator Case. Will you read the entire sentence?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir ; I shall be very happy to do so. I read :
Because it is essential to (fficient and effective administration that employees
of the executive branch be in a position to be completely candid in advising with
each other on official matters, and because it is not in the public interest that any
of their conversations or communications, or any documents or repi'odnctions,
concerning such advice be disclosed, you will instruct employees of your Depart-
ment that in all of their appearances before the Subcommittee of tlie Senate
170 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Committee on Government Operations regarding the inquiry now before it tliey
are not to testify to any sucti conversations or communications or to produce
any sucli docifments or reproductions.
That is tlie entire sentence.
Senator Case. Now, will you read the sentence that follows, which
concludes the paragraph ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Tiiis principle must be maintained regardless of who would he benefited by
such disclosures.
Senator Case. Now, Mr. Williams, directing your attention to the
first part of the first sentence, the long sentence
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Senator Case. And the clause which you did not read the first
time
]\Ir. Williams. Because I felt it had no relationship to the point
I was making.
Senator Case. I invite your attention to the clause —
And because it is not in the public interest that any of their conversations or
communications, or any documents or reproductions, concerning such advice
be disclosed — -
and that is with reference to advising with each other, which is in the
first clause.
Mr. Williams. On official matters. Senator Case.
Senator Case. On official matters. And the final sentence of the
paragraph :
This principle must be maintained regardless of who would be benefited by
such disclosures.
I am wondering, if that principle is to be maintained, if counsel, in
advising General Lawton, would not advise him just as he has been
advised. While the instant case was an appearance before the sub-
committee of the Senate Committee on Government Operations, that
is the occasion of the letter from the President to the Secretary, but
I am unable to see, personally, how that principle that employees in
the executive branch must be in position to be completely candid in
advising each other, that it is not in the public interest that any of
those conversations between them be maintained — I don't see how that
could be maintained unless it were applicable to other cases and ap-
pearances before that particular subcommittee.
Mr. Williams. Senator, I believe, sir, that in any proceeding of
this kind where there are accusations directed against one man, it is
in the interest of justice that all the truth should come out, and I
believe that all the relevant truth should be received in evidence here
unless there is some rule or regulation which specifically tells an
officer of the Army, as in this case, that he may not testify in this
proceeding.
Now, there is no such regulation; there is no such rule; and if orders
of this kind. Senator Case, I respectfully submit, are to be construed
so liberally that persons in the executive can come before a committee
of Congi"ess and say that although there is no order which blocks you
from getting my testimony, I have consulted counsel of the depart-
ment which might be embarrassed by my testimony and they have
suggested that I not testify — if that day comes, I say that the fact-
finding, investigative agencies of this Congress will be stopped and
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 171
the avenues of information that have heretofore been open to this
Congress will no longer be open ; and the factfinding committees will
be completely thwarted in their work.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, I drew^ attention to this because it
seems to me that this goes to the very heart of one of the big issues
that was before the committee in the hearings conducted by Senator
Mundt, and also to one of the issues that is involved here, and that
is with respect to the privilege of conversations that are within the
executive department, or conversations on the other side that are
within the Congress.
The committees in the Congress have been very jealous to preserve
the right of committees to hold executive hearings when they want to.
The committees of the Congress when they hold an executive hear-
ing on appropriations or on other matters do not permit representa-
tives of the executive branch to appear in those hearings except by
invitation.
The committees of the Congress are jealous to preserve the right to
hold executive sessions and confidential discussions, and I can Under-
stand how the executive branch can say, conversations between mem-
bers of the executive branch that are in the category of official matters,
are matters within 1 of the 3 branches of the Government.
Of course, it is to be noted that in the last part of the letter by the
President, he said that he was not in any way restricting the testimony
of witnesses as to what occurred where the communication was directly
between any of the principles of the controversy within the executive
branch on the one hand, and the members of a subcommittee or its staff,
on the other.
Now, before interrogating the counsel for Senator McCarthy, I
asked Mr, cle Furia, the assistant counsel on the committee staff here,
whether he or Mr. Chadwick had talked with General Lawton.
I would like to get the information, frankly, that I feel General
Lawton can give us. I was hoping that possibly counsel for the com-
mittee had talked with General Lawton, because if that were true, that
I think that he would be free to testify with regard to conversations
between him and members of this committee, or members of this com-
mittee's staff under the terms of the President's letter.
I recognize that there are a lot of ramifications of this question, but
I think if we want, if we venture to assert the right of congressional
committees to demand the conversation that goes on between two
officials in the executive branch, then the committee must recognize
that we may be infringing upon the confidence that we can maintain
for executive sessions of congressional committees as opposed to re-
quests from the executive branch or from the judiciary,
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I want to say this : I don't know
what your ruling will be, sir, but I say this before you make it :
There is no desire on the part of us to in any way embarrass General
Lawton, or in any way put him in a position where he is affected detri-
mentally in his relationship with the department which he served for
these many years and with the department from which he is now
enjoying his retirement.
So, I will make a proffer of what we would have shown.
The Chairman. I doubt that that would be proper. You have not
asked for an order directing him to testify, to answer the questions.
52461—54 12
172 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Do you want to raise squarely the question so that we will have some-
thing definite to rule on ? As the record now stands I think I am not in
a position yet to rule.
Do you now insist that he answer this question ?
Mr. Williams. I will consult with Senator McCarthy on this and I
will see what his disposition is, because I think to some extent there
are personal considerations that must be kept in mind. I do not want
to do anything to embarrass the general, but I would like to get the
evidence.
The CiiAiKMAN. You can understand that I do not want to rule
on it unless there is an insistence that he be ordered and directed to
answer the question. Then it will raise it squarely.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the witness :
Is there any question whatsoever of national security involved in
the conversation between you and General Zwicker which you have
refused to divulge to this committee of Congress?
General Lawton. I don't mean to be picayunish, but an answer to
your question would then reveal the conversation between General
Zwicker and myself, which I am not at liberty to disclose.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a very simple
question and one that ought to be answered, and I don't think that
the directive in May precludes the witness from answering that
question.
If there is anything of national security involved, why I can see
where this committee would have no right to ask the question.
If there is no matter of national security involved, it seems to me
that this committee is being deprived of information that it should
have.
I want to remind the chairman, and I know I do not need to remind
him, that the Senator's political life is at stake in the question before
this committee and it is a serious matter indeed. If the national se-
curity is not involved, then most certainly we should have help from
the executive department in developing the true facts with respect to a
Member of the United States Senate.
The Chairman. Senator Johnson, I will say that, in a way, to a
degree at least, the question you asked General Lawton involves the
same general problem that has been raised with respect to Mr. Wil-
liams' questions and I will say this : When we were advised yesterday
that General Lawton would be questioned as a witness, we were not
advised that he would raise any question about his right to testify.
Mr. Williams. Let me hasten to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I
did not know that there would be any question about that, because
when I talked to General Lawton before we talked to Mr. Brooker
in the Pentagon, there was not any question about his testifying. So
I could not give the committee that information.
The Chairman. We were not advised and I did not know exactly
what you knew about it, and for that reason the committee did not
give consideration to what the possible ruling should be.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. You know that the chairman is only the voice
of the committee. I hesitate to make a ruling about this question in-
volved during the other hearings.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 173
Mr, Williams. I may be able to help you. I have talked to Senator
McCarthy during the last minute and he says to me that it is his posi-
tion that he does not want to force the Chair to rule on this.
He feels that General Lawton has suffered reparations for his testi-
mony before the Government Operations Committee before and he
does not want to put him in a position which would be embarrassing
before this committee or with the Department of Defense, and we
will not demand an order that General Lawton respond to this question.
The Chairman. Even though you may not demand the order, 1
think the committee sliould consider it because I think the committee
does want to get all the information that it can lawfully get on the
very important questions that have been raised by the charges against
the Senator from Wisconsin, irrespective of whether you raise it or
not. I think we should consider it.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. I was not quite through, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. All right. Senator Johnson. I had to make a
ruling on that matter. I was going to suggest to the members of the
committee that we ought to probably have an executive session to see
what the stand of the committee will be on this matter.
You may proceed. Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, in defense of my position I
thought I heard yesterday, and I have not had a chance to go over the
record of yesterday's hearing, but I understood that there was a ruling
read yesterday with respect to the executive department and the execu-
tive department's privilege of speaking and testifying, that there was
to be no impediment on anything which did not affect the national
security. I would like to have our counsel speak to that point.
Was there not something read into the record yesterday with respect
to the directive issued to the executive department that testimony
€Ould be freely given except in cases where the national security was
involved ?
The Chairman. Well, Senator, I do not know just how much of
this discussion can take place here at this moment, but I do think, how-
ever, that the committee should consider this general question that
has been raised.
As I have indicated, it is important to the committee to get all the
truth, no matter who it helps or hurts in this controversy, and even
though Senator McCarthy is not going to press the question, it has
been raised and I think we ought to develop it and that is the reason
for the executive session.
Senator Stennis. I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Stennis.
Senator Stennis. General Lawton, I understand you base your po-
sition solely on this directive dated May 17, 1954 ; is that correct ?
General Lawton. In general, yes.
Senator Stennis. In general. Now, you do not have any other
directive in mind than that which causes you to decline to answer ?
General Lawton. That is correct.
Senator Stennis. Thank you.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Johnson.
174 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator Johnson. A reference has been handed me with respect
to the matter which I just referred to a moment ago, entitled "Removal
From Classified Civil Service," and I am reading from yesterday's
record :
The attention of the committee is respectfully called to the last sentence of an
act approved August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 555; 5 U. S. C. : 652 (d), which reads:
"The right of persons employed in the civil service of the United States,
either Individually or collectively, to petition Congress, or any Member thereof,
or to furnish information to either House of Congress, or to any committee,
or member thereof, shall not be denied or interfered with."
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman.
Tlie Chairman. Just a moment until Senator Johnson finishes.
Senator Johnson. That is not the passage that I had in mind, but
it is somewhat in point.
The Chairman. Senator Case.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, I agree wholly with what the chair-
man has said with respect to desiring to get this information.
As I suggested earlier, I would like to see the information developed
as we ought to develop any information that would be helpful in this
matter.
With that thought in mind, I suggest that the committee call General
Zwicker. My understanding is that he is here, tliat he is available,
and I believe that on direct examination of General Zwicker, the testi-
mony can be developed that counsel for Senator McCarthy desires to
develop,
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. I lost you there. Senator. If I cannot develop it
through General Lawton w^ho is retired, I cannot see how I can develop
it through General Zwicker who is on active duty and I do not believe
General Zwicker would be eager to testify to the facts that he hopes
to develop through General Lawton. I would be most surprised if
he is.
Senator Case. It seems to me that the information might be devel-
oped by direct examination of General Zwicker as to what he did or
positions he may have taken personally without reference to con-
versations between him and General Lawton.
The Chairman. Well, General, I think we could argue this back
and forth and probably wouldn't get the matter settled officially so
we could make a ruling. I suggest now, unless there is objection, the
committee will go into executive session.
Senator Johnson of Colorado. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson of Colorado. May I have permission to insert in
the record at this point, when I find it, the reference I mentioned a
moment ago ?
The Chairman. You may have such permission.
(The reference referred to is as follows :)
Section 18. Review within departments and agencies.
The head of each department and agency shall designate a member or mem-
bers of his staff who shall conduct a continuing review of the implementation
of this order within the department or agency concerned to insure that no in-
formation is withheld hereunder which the people of the United States have
a right to know, and to insure that classified defense information is properly
safeguarded in conformity herewith.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 175
Section 19. Revocation of Executive Order No. 10290.
Executive Order No. 10290 of September 24, 1951, is revoked as of the effective
date of this order.
Section 20. Effective date. This order shall become effective on December 15,
1953.
DwiGHT D. Eisenhower,
The White House,
Novemher 5, 1953.
(FR Document 53-9553 ; filed, November 9, 1953 ; 9 : 55 a. m.)
M. Constitution of United States of America, revised and annotated 1952,
Senate Document 170, 82d Congress, 2d session, page 82.
If Congress so provides, violation of valid administrative regulations may be
provided as crimes. But the penalties must be provided in the statute itself.
The Chairman. I started out to suggest that we take a recess, and
that is what I am going to do now — recess
Mr. Williams. JNIr, Chairman, please. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, sir.
May I suggest this: If the committee wants an executive session
before deciding the question before it, may we have, please, sir, while
still in open session, an opportunity to call our next witness and get
his testimony in, which is on the same subject matter, and in order to
have that behind us ?
He has been waiting here for a day and a half to testify.
The Chairman. We will be willing to do that.
General Lawton may withdraw for the moment and we will call
the next witness.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, would you please call William J.
Harding.
The Chairman. Mr. Harding, will you please take the witness
stand ?
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM J. HARDING, JR.
Will you raise your right hand and be sworn ?
Do you solemnly swear that you will in the evidence you will present
here give the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
Mr. Harding. I do, so help me God.
The Chairman. You may take the witness stand.
Give us your name and address.
Mr. Harding. William J. Harding, Jr.
The Chairman. And your address ?^
Mr. Harding. 525 Park Avenue, Borough of Manhattan, New York
City.
The Chairman. You may question the witness, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Harding, how long have you lived in New York
City, sir ?
Mr. Harding. Sixty years.
Mr. Williams. Lived there all your life ?
Mr. Harding. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. In what business are you engaged ?
Mr. Harding. I conduct a sales agency, a small sales agency.
Mr. Williams. Now, Mr. Harding, I want to direct your attention,
if I may, to February 18, 1954, and ask you if on the morning of that
date vou were at the Federal Courthouse in Foley Square, in New
York:
176 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Harding. I was, sir.
Mr. Williams. Will you tell us approximately what time you ar-
rived there?
The Chairman. Just a moment, Mr. Williams. Will the witness
pull the mike closer to him and lean forward, so that he may be heard?
Mr. Harding. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. It is not as sensitive as it might be, and, for that
reason, you have to get closer to it.
Mr. Harding. Thank you.
Mr. WiLi^Aisrs. Did you hear the last pending question?
The question was : Approximately what time did j^ou arrive at the
Foley Square Courthouse in New York on the date in question ?
Mr. Harding. I believe I arrived there somewhere between 11 and
11 : 15 a. m. I didn't look at my watch as to the exact time.
Mr. WiLLiAivrs. Was the Senate Permanent Investigating Committee
holding open session on that morning?
Mr. Harding. They were.
Mr. Williams. In what room was that open session ?
Mr. Harding. It was in room 110 on the first floor of the Federal
Court building, Foley Square.
Mr. Williams. Did you go to that room ?
Mr. Harding. I did.
Mr. Williams. Were you admitted and seated in that room during-
that hearing?
Mr. Harding. I was finally admitted. When I arrived there, the-
doors were closed, and the United States marshal was at the door,,
evidently indicating that the room was very well filled with spec-
tators. I asked to have pennission to go in. My recollection is that
he went inside the door and within 5 or 10 seconds came back and
said he found a space where I might sit down.
Mr. Williams. Approximately what time was it when you gained
your seat at the hearing ?
Mr. Harding. Well, I still say it was somewhere betwen 11 and
11:15. I didn't look at my watch as I sat down.
Mr. Williams. Now, who was testifying at the time you gained
entrance to the hearings ?
Mr. Harding. A former major in the United States Anny named
Peress.
Mr. Williams. Maj. Irving Peress?
Mr. Harding. I believe that was his first name, Irving.
Mr. Williams. Who
The Chairman. Mr. Williams at this point the Chair is in some
doubt. Was this at a public hearing ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Mr. Williams. Who was interrogating Major Peress?
Mr. Harding. At the time I entered the room ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, during the time you sat there.
Mr. Harding. During the time I sat there he was interrogated,
to my recollection, by Mr. Cohn, Senator McCarthy, and I believe
a few questions were directed to him by the administrative assistant
to General Dirksen, a man I believe named Rainville.
Mr. Williams. You mean Senator Dirksen ?
Mr. Harding. I meant to say Senator Dirksen.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 177
And also the administrative assistant to Senator Potter, who I
believe was a youns: man named Jones.
Mr. Williams. Was anyone else there present on the stand or on
the bench '^
I believe it was held in a courtroom.
Was anyone else of the committee there ?
. Mr. Harding. Anyone else from the committee ?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Mr. Harding. ]\Iy recollection is it Avas only Senator IMcCarthy
there that morning as a member of the committee.
Mr. Williams. Staff members now, to your knowledge.
Mr. HvRDiNG. Pardon.
Mr. Williams. Staff members now I am talking about.
Mr. Harding. Oh, staff members. I believe there was a man named
Juliana that was there.
Mr. Williams. Now, did there come a time during the morning
when a question was asked about someone who was seated in the
audience?
Mv. Harding. Yes, there was such a time came.
Mr. Williams. And was that person who was seated in the audience
identified?
Mr. Harding. Yes. I believe that Senator McCarthy called out
the name of Gen. Ralph Zwicker and asked if he would stand up.
jNIr. Williams. Where was he seated with relationship to you ?
]\Ir. Harding. He was seated in the row directly behind me and
just a bit to my right. I would say about — in the Federal — in the
first place, let me explain in the Federal court building there are
not individual seats there. There are rows of benches. It is not —
one person doesn't have any seat right behind another. You might
have 3 people sitting in 1 bench, where 2 would be sitting at the
bench ahead. But he was sitting at just a point where he was at
my right elbow, in back of me.
Mr. Williams. How was he seated in this chair?
Mr. Harding. He was seated forward, for most of the testimony,
in his chair, with an intent eagerness, I imagine, to listen to all the
testimony, with his head bent forward, about the same position that
I am in now, I'd say.
The Chairman. Mr. Williams, may I ask you a question?
Do you intend to offer by this witness what happened in this public
hearing ?
Mr. WiLLL\MS. I don't intend to offer everything that happened^
because it isn't relevant, but I intend to offer one incident which
happened which I think is very relevant.
The Chairman. Would it ordinarily be a matter of record, that
the reporter would have taken down ?
Mr, Williams. No, sir.
The Chairman. It was one of those matters independent of the
record ?
Mr. WiLLL\MS. This is not of record.
The Chairman. I see.
The reason I asked the question : Ordinarily, if it is a matter of
record, the record, itself, would be the best evidence.
Mr. Williams. This is not of record.
The Chairman. I see.
178 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
You may proceed.
Mr. Williams. Now, can you tell us, so we will have the time
fixed, Mr. Harding, approximately what time it was that General
Zwicker identified himself, or was identified by Senator McCarthy or
Mr. Cohn?
Mr. Harding. Well, again it would have to be from my best recol-
lection. I didn't look at my watch at the time that Senator McCarthy
asked him to stand up, but I would say it was possibly 15 to 25
minutes after I had sat there in the room.
Mr. Williams. So that you would fix it at about 11:30; 11:35?
Mr. Harding. Somewhere in there. I mean I don't want to be
positive on the testimony as to the exact time it was. It was some-
where in there.
Mr. Williams. Was there anyone accompanying General Zwicker?
Mr. Harding. Yes. When I went into my seat, I noticed two
other officers of the United States Army. First, I noticed, as I went
through, there was one officer who sat there with brigadier general
stars on his shoulders. To his right there were two other officers of
lesser rank, I believe. They were lieutenant colonels or possibly one
of them may have been a full colonel, but my best recollection is they
were botli lieutenant colonels.
Mr. Williams. Now, Mr. Harding, did you hear General Zwicker
make any remark relative to the chairman of the committee?
The Chairman. You can answer that yes or no.
Mr. Harding. Yes.
The Chairman. Now
Mr. Williams. Will you tell the committee what that was, sir?
The Chairman. Now, just a moment. Let us be sure we have the
identification of the general certain before he proceeds to answer that.
Did you know General Zwicker?
Mr. Harding. Did I know him ?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Harding. No ; I did not know him.
The Chairman. How was it you came to have the opinion it was
General Zwicker ?
Mr. Harding. I came to have the opinion because he stood up right
at my right elbow when his name was called, and I didn't think some
other general would stand up in the room.
The Chairman. Just a moment. As I remember, you said Senator
McCarthy asked him to stand up.
Mr. Harding. That's correct, sir.
The Chairman. And I assume, Mr. Williams, this would be in the
record.
Mr. Williams. That is in the record.
The Chairman. Yes. I haven't read the record, so I wouldn't know
on this particular hearing.
You heard this gentleman, then, make some remark after he had
been identified by the chairman and then stood up ?
Mr. Harding. I heard him make the remark after he had identified
himself as being General Zwicker ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right. You may proceed.
Mr. Williams. Would you tell the committee what the remark was
that you first heard that General Zwicker directed toward Senator
McCarthv?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 179
Mr. Harding. I'd be glad to answer that question directly to you, sir,
but I would like to respectfully ask that I be given an opportunity to
relate the part of the conversation or part of Senator McCarthy's
questions to General Zwicker ; and, as I remember, General Zwicker's
answers to Senator McCarthy — I don't have them verbatim, but I
remember them very well.
Mr. Williams. They are, as a matter of fact, of record.
The Chairman. That, of course, is the best evidence, and if you
want to show that it would still have to be subjected to scrutiny to
see whether
Mr. Harding. If it's in the record
The Chairman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Harding. Those are the few sentences that I heard and, as
General Zwicker finished
The Chairman. Now, when you say he finished, you mean
Mr. Harding. Pardon.
The Chairman. You mean he finished answering the question that
Senator McCarthy had asked ?
Mr. Harding. The last question, or the last statement, let's say. I
think the last, as I remember, was a statement by Senator McCarthy
directed directly to General Zwicker. It was not a question, it was a
statement, as I remember.
The Chairman. Now, was General Zwicker still standing or did he
sit down ?
Mr. Harding. He then sat down.
The Chairman. All right. Proceed.
Mr. Harding. As he sat down, his head — I was leaning back in my
seat, like I am now, and his head passed my head, within, I would
say, 12 to 14 inches of it, and I distinctly heard him mutter, undier
his breath, "You S. O. B."
Mr. Williams. Now, did you hear any further conversation?
Did you hear —
Mr. Harding. Did I hear — I beg your pardon.
Mr. Williams. Did you hear any further conversation ?
Mr. Harding. Within a few seconds thereafter, after he had sat
completely down in his seat, I heard him turn to 1 or 2 of the officers
to his right — I don't know whether he was directing his remarks to
both of them, but at least to one of them — and he said, "You see, I told
you this is what we'd get."
Mr. Williams. Now, thereafter, what is your best recollection as
to whether you heard any more remarks of that character from Gen-
eral Zwicker?
Mr. Harding. My best recollection is that I heard him mutter once
more during the testimony under his breath, but I am unwilling at
this time, under oath, to state definitely that I did hear him say it
the second time. I think I did, but I will not swear definitely that
I did.
Mr. Williams. Now, this was before General Zwicker testified in
executive session ; was it not ?
Mr. Harding. It was the morning of the afternoon at which he
had been told by Senator McCarthy that he was going to be called
into executive or closed session, whatever you call it.
Mr. Williams. So that General Zwicker had not yet testified as a
witness before the committee?
180 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Harding. Well, I don't know whether he had or hadn't at some
other time, sir. but as of that day he had not.
Mr, Williams. I ask the Chair to take notice of the fact that Gen-
eral Zwicker's testimony, which is in issue here, did not begin until
4:30 that afternoon in executive session and that the incidents that
are being testified to took place in the morning in open session.
Senator Stetstnis. Mr. Chairman, at that point —
The Ch'Vtrman. Senator Stennis.
Senator Stennis. It is not clear why Senator McCarthy was calling
out for General Zwicker or addressing remarks to him while he was
back in the audience.
Mr. Williams. I think in proper context we ought to read that into
the record at this time.
Major Peress was on the stand and he was answering questions or,
I should sav, refusing to answer questions, and finally, the chairman — •
and I am reading from page 136 — turned and said :
The Chairman. General Zwicker, may I ask you a question? You can stay
ris-'ht there.
Whenever I served as O. D. — and I think this has been general practice in
the ^larine Corps, the Navy, and the Army — you normally had access to the
encoding and decoding machines. Ordinarily an officer of the rank of major
or above must take his stint at encoding or decoding.
Could you tell me whether or not that has been the practice at Camp Kilmer?
Brig Gen. Ralph Zwicker. It is not.
The Chairman. In other words, so far as you know, this individual never
had access to any confidential or secret material?
General Zwicker. He did not.
The Chairman. Your answer is what?
General Zwicker. He did not.
The Chairman. .Just one other question, General. I did not intend to im-
pose upon you this morning.
His Army file contains reference to his being considered for — and I think
I am quoting it correctly — sensitive work in May of 195.3. Would you have any
idea what that sensitive work was? If you do not know, we will show you
the file to refresh your recollection. The file shows that in May, that is, after
it was fully known that he was a Communist, the tile shows that he was con-
sidered for sensitive work.
The file does not show whether he was rejected or not. Just offhand, you
wouldn't know what that sensitive work would be?
General Zwicker. I do not.
Tlie Chairman. I wonder if you can do this : You are appearing this after-
noon in executive session. I would like to have you here to listen to all of
this testimony. If you have an aide with you, I wonder if you could have
somebody call Camp Kilmer and find out just what the sensitive work was
that he was being considered fur.
Mr. Peress then interjected:
I might be able to help you on that.
General Zwicker. Even if I did know, I would not be privileged to tell you,
under the Executive order which forbids us to discuss matters of that nature.
Mr. DE FuRiA. There is another sentence in there.
The Chairman. One further sentence, counsel.
Mr. Williams (reading) :
The Chairman. I may say. General, you will be in difficulty if you refuse
to tell us what sensitive work a Communist was being considered for. There is
no Executive order for the purpose of protecting Communi.sts. I v/ant to tell
you right now, you will be asked that question this afternoon. You will be
ordered to make available that information.
And then Mr. Peress speaks.
Is that the testimony you had reference to?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 181
Mr. Harding. That is the testimony I had reference to; yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. You may examine.
Mr. Chadwick. We have no questions, sir.
The Chaibman. No questions.
Mr. Harding. Am I excused?
The Chairman. You are excused, Mr. Harding.
Mr. Harding. Thank you.
(Thereupon, at 11:05 a. m., the committee proceeded in executive
session. )
(At 11 : 49 a. m., the committee being in recess, an announcement
was made, as follows:)
; Mr. Jex. The committee has asked me to announce that the Chair
will change its order from an indefinite recess to a definite recess to
2 p. m., at which time the committee will reconvene for public hearing.
(Thereupon, at 11 : 50 a. m., the committee recessed until 2 p. m. the
same day.)
afternoon session
Thereupon, at 2 : 07 p. m., the committee reconvened.
. The Chairman. The committee will now be in session.
The photographers will please leave the room. We will let them
come back if they put their cameras away.
With reference to the matter which was under discussion when the
committee took a recess, the committee will continue a study of this
situation and the matter connected with it. The fact involved is in-
volved in the final decision which will be made by the Senate, probably,
and in a lesser degree by this committee later on. It is involved in
some of the charges which are under consideration. So that matter
will not be presented at the moment.
Mr. Williams, do you have any further questions of the witness
who was on the stand ?
Mr. Williams. No, sir ; I do not.
The Chairman. You will then be excused.
You may proceed.
Mr. Williams. Senator McCarthy will stand the stand, sir.
TESTIMONY OF SENATOR JOSEPH R. McCARTHY
The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will
give in the matter now pending before the committee will be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Senator McCarthy. I do.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, in the orderly sequence of things,
we are going, with the Chair's indulgence, to address ourselves in
the first instance to the so-called Zwicker case inasmuch as the com-
mittee has heard testimony on that this morning.
Would you please state your full name for the record?
Senator" McCarthy. Joe McCarthy.
Mr. Williams. You are the junior Senator from the State of Wis-
consin ?
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Mr. Williams. Senator, are you presently serving in this, the 83d
Congress, as chairman of the Government Committee on Operations^
the Senate Committee on Government Operations ?
182 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator McCarthy. I am.
Mr. Williams, Are you also serving as chairman of the Permanent
Investigating Committee, which is a subcommittee of that Govern-
ment Operations Committee?
Senator McCarthy. I am.
Mr. Williams. How long have you been so serving?
Senator McCarthy. Since January of 1953, as our administration
took over.
Mr. Williams. Directing your attention, sir, to 1953, was your com-
mittee engaged in an investigation of subversion at Fort Monmouth ?
Senator McCarthy. We were.
Mr. Williams. In that connection, sir, did you meet the man who
testified here this morning, General Lawton ?
Senator McCarthy. I did.
Mr. Williams. Now, while conducting your investigation into the
subject about which I have just alluded to, did there come to your
attention a situation that obtained at Camp Kilmer with respect to a
Maj. Irving Peress?
Senator McCarthy. There did.
Mr. Williams. Who was the commanding general at Camp Kilmer
at that time ?
Senator McCarthy. General Zwicker.
Mr. Williams. Gen. Kalph W. Zwicker, who is the subject matter
of one of the charges in this case?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Mr. Williams. Would you tell the committee, Senator, when, in
the first instance, the so-called Peress case came to your attention ?
Senator McCarthy. It came to our attention, Mr. Williams, in
November, I believe, of 1953.
Mr. Williams. At that time, was General Zwicker the commanding
general of Camp Kilmer?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir. He became commanding general in
July of 1953.
Mr. Williams. What, if anything, to your knowledge did you or
members of your staff do with respect to the information on Major
Peress that you have just described ?
Senator McCarthy. We turned all of the information over to Mr.
J ohn Adams, legal counsel for the Army.
Mr. Williams. Can you fix that, sir, in point of time ?
Senator McCarthy. Well, it would be by hearsay. My chief counsel
turned it over to him, I think he reported to me, in December. In
other words, shortly after we got the information.
Mr. Williams. Was there any subpena issued for Major Peress in
December of 1953?
Senator McCarthy. There was not.
Mr. Williams. Wliat was the next action that was taken by your
committee with relationship to this case, and I direct your attention to
the early part of 1954, the early part of January.
Senator McCarthy. On January 4, 1954, my chief counsel again
took the matter up with Mr. Adams, called his attention to the fact
that they had a man who was a leader in the Communist Party in a
rather key position at a port of embarkation and debarkation and
suggested that the Army do something about it rather than have our
committee go into the matter.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 183
Mr. Williams. Thereafter, and I refer to January 4, thereafter,
what, if any, action, did your committee take with respect to this
particular situation at Camp Kilmer ?
Senator McCarthy. Well, when nothing was done when Peress con-
tinued to serve, we asked for his appearane before the committee.
Request was made on the 26th day of January. He appeared in execu-
tive session on the 30th day of January.
]Mr. Williams. Where did he appear? I am calling about geo-
graphically.
Senator McCarthy. Courthouse, Foley Square, New York.
Mr. Williams. That was on January 30 of 1954 of this year ?
Senator McCarthy. Thafs right.
Mr. Williams. Peress was called, as I understand it, in executive
session ?
Senator McCarthy. Correct.
Mr. Williams. Was he interrogated at that time ?
Senator McCarthy. He was in detail.
Mr. Williams. Who was there present, sir ?
Senator McCarthy. As I recall, Mr. Rainville, the administrative
assistant for Senator Dirksen, was present; Mr. Jones, the admin-
istrative assistant for Senator Potter; Mr. John — I am not sure if
John Adams was present or not. It seems to me he did not come to
the executive session meeting. I wouldn't know for certain, however.
Mr. Williams. Senator, what was the general subject matter of that
which Major Peress was interrogated on the occasion of this executive
session ?
Senator McCarthy. We asked him about his alleged Communist
activities, whether he had graduated from a Communist leadership
school, the name of the school was — let's see, what was that name?
Mr. Williams. Inwood Victory School.
Senator McCarthy. Inwood Victory School. Refused to answer
that on the ground that if he answered it, it might incriminate him ;
asked whether he was recruiting soldiers at Camp Kilmer ; again, the
fifth amendment ; asked whether he held Communist meetings in his
quarters at Camp Kilmer ; again refused to answer on the grounds of
self-incrimination.
He was asked about a change in duty orders that he got in February,
I think, of 1953. He had been scheduled to go to Yokohama, Japan.
He applied for a change in duty orders on the ground of hardship. He
got that change in duty orders. We J:hought the circumstances were
unusual. The only grounds he had, the only grounds were that his
wife and daughter were visiting a psychiatrist. He could not even
remember the name of the psychiatrist, and on the basis of that he
was given duty in the United States, and I believe the Senators on
the committee had letters from any number of young men who had
much more pronounced hardship cases, cases of wives on the point
of death.
The Chairman. Mr. Williams, may I inquire, this is preliminary, is
it not, to the point ?
Mr. Williams. To the testimony. I think it is necessary to set the
backdrop. I am not going to pursue this in detail. I think it is
necessary to set the backdrop for General Zwicker's appearance on
February 18. That is what I am undertaking to do in these few
minutes.
184 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The Chairman. With that understanding, I am not going to restrict
you too much, but we don't want to try that case over.
Mr. Williams. Now, would you tell us, Senator, in just a few words,
what information you developed on this occasion of the executive
session, the appearance of Major Peress ? You learned he was inducted
into the Army January 1, 1953.
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Mr. AViLLiAMs. He came in as a captain, did he not?
Senator McCarthy. Captain ; as a captain.
Mr. Williams. You found out in August of 1953 that investigations
had been conducted of him by the Army in which he had taken the fifth
amendment.
Senator McCarthy. We learned to the best of our knowledge in
April of 1953 the FBI had given the Army a complete report on Peress
containing practically all the information which we developed at the
hearings.
Then in August of 1953 he was given a questionnaire and asked
many of the questions which we asked him about Communist activities,
and he wrote across the face of the question, '"Refuse to answer. Fifth
amendment."
In November 1953 he was promoted to major.
Mr. Williams. He was promoted to major from captain ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir; after it was fully known about all his
Communist activities.
Mr. Williams. At tliat time was he stationed at Camp Kilmer?
Senator McCarthy. He was, and General Zwicker was his com-
manding officer.
Mr. Williams. How long had he been at Camp Kilmer as of August ?
Senator McCarthy. You mean General Zwicker or Peress? Do
you want Peress first?
Mr. Williams. Peress first.
Senator McCarthy. Peress went directly from the debarkation
point in Washington to Camp Kilmer, and I believe that was in
February 1953. So he had been there quite some time.
Mr. Williams. How long had General Zwicker been commanding
general ?
Senator McCarthy. From July 1953.
Mr. Williams. Now^ at the time that IMajor Peress appeared before
you on January 30, of 1954, he was still on active duty at Camp Kilmer ;
is that correct?
Senator McCarthy. He was.
Mr. Williams. As a result of the testimony developed in executive
session on that occasion, was a request made for his appearance in
open session ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes; that is right.
Mr. WiLLL\MS. Do you recall when he was asked to present himself
for interrogation and examination in open session?
Senator McCarthy. I do not recall the date he was asked to appear.
He appeared on the 18th day of February.
I might say that in the meantime, Mr. Williams, a rather important
occurrence having a direct bearing upon this Zwicker matter, after
Peress appeared and refused to tell whether he was recruiting soldiers
into the Communist Party, whether he Avas holding Communist meet-
ings at his home, whether he was a graduate of a Communist leadership
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 185
school, whether a Communist helped him to get his change in duty
orders, I wrote to Secretary Stevens and suggested that this man be
court-martialed.
There were two grounds for the court-martial :
No, 1 : When he entered, he signed a statement to the effect that
he belonged to no subversive organization, specifically I believe that
included tlie Communist Party.
Under the code, that is the criminal code, that is a felony calling
for a prison sentence up to 5 years.
I felt also that his refusal to answer the questions about Commu-
nist activities, while tliis refusal could not be accepted in a criminal
court, contrary to the popular conception the use of the fifth amend-
ment in regard to criminal activities can be used in a civil action.
I suggested to Bob Stevens, and I cannot quote the exact language,
that here was a chance to serve notice on all officers in the Army that
there would be no more coddling of Communists, that if they had any
information about Communist infiltration, that they would be ex-
pected to give that information to the proper authorities that could
be acted upon. That was done.
Mr. Williams. On what date ?
Senator McCarthy. I do not recall the date the letter was dis-
patched. It was made public, as I recall, on February 1.
Mr. Williams. Was that letter written, to the best of your recol-
lection, on the date on which Peress had testified before your com-
mittee ?
Senator McCarthy. It was written that evening, as I recall, or
the next morning.
Mr. Williams. Now, in the January 30 executive session
Senator McCarthy. Could I add something, Mr. Williams ? I do
not like to make these answers lengthy, but Secretary Stevens was not
there, was not in the country at the time the letter was made public.
He arrived back in the States on the 2d of Februai'y.
Before he set foot on American soil, Peress was removed from the
jurisdiction of the military. When I say removed, I should explain
that unless the penalty for a felony is over 5 years, tlie military does
not retain jurisdiction in case of an honorable discharge. In this
case the penalty was a 5-year period so they lost jurisdiction.
Mr. Williams. Your point is that they lost jurisdiction to try him
for an offense that he had committed during his service as an officer
once they discharged him. They gav« him an honorable discharge.
On what date was he honorably discharged?
Senator McCarthy. On the morning of February 2.
Mr. Williams. 1954 ?
Senator McCarthy. 1954, the morning after my letter to Bob
Stevens was made public.
Mr. Williams. Now, coming to February 18 of 1954, this was the
date on which Peress was directed to present himself for open session ?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Mr. Williams. That hearing was set for what time originally ?
Senator McCarthy. I think the hearing Avas set for 10 o'clock in
the morning.
Mr. Williams. I notice here in the record that it, in fact, did not
begin until much later than that.
186 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator McCarthy. The reason for that, Mr. Williams, was that
my wife was in a taxicab the night before and broke her ankle in
three places.
• I was up with her all night and had to take her to the hospital
in the morning.
Mr. Williams. What time did you get away ?
Senator McCarthy. I think it was 11. Let me see, let me look at
the record. It Avas about 11 o'clock. In other words, we Avere about
1 hour off schedule.
Mr. Williams. Did you go directly to Foley Square from Flower
Hospital ?
Senator McCarthy. I did not go to Flower Hospital. I got Jean
in an ambulance and went directly from there to Foley Square.
Mr. Williams. Who was the first witness heard at that meeting?
Senator McCarthy. A Ruth Eagle. She was an undercover agent
for the New York Police Department, specializing in Communist ac-
tivities.
In fact, she joined the Communist Party at the behest of the New
York Police Department, as I recall.
Mr. Williams. She identified Major Peress as a section leader in
the party in New York.
Senator McCarthy. She identified him :
1. As a graduate of the Communist leadership school ;
2. As a section organizer for the Communist Party.
In other words, as an important functionary of the Coipmunist
Party.
Mr. Williams. Following her testimony. Major Peress was called
to the stand, was he ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes ; he was called to the stand. That is our
practice when somebody is identified as a Communist; we call them
to the stand immediately, wherever possible, in order to permit them
to admit it or deny it.
Mr. Williams. Was Peress accompanied by counsel ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes ; he was.
Mr. Williams. Did he respond to the questions that were pro-
pounded to him regarding his Communist actvities in open session
on this morning?
Senator McCarthy. No ; he was very selective in his answers. He
answered everything, as I recall, not having to do with Communist
activities, but when we got to his Communist activities, why, there
was the usual "I refuse to answer on the ground my answer might
tend to incriminate me."
' ^ Mr. Williams. Did there come a time in the interrogation of Major
Peress when he was asked about an application that lie had made
while at Camp Kilmer for sensitive work which required a security
clearance, an extra security clearance for liim ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir; there did come that time, Mr. Wil-
liams. The reason for that question was that we had the file. We
knew he had applied for security clearance to handle — I do not recall
what classification, whether it was secret or confidential work.
Mr. Williams. Did he respond to the questions that were pro-
pounded to him on that subject?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, he gave us a rather unusual answer when
I asked him what sensitive work he was trying to get into. Knowing
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 187
he was a Communist, a Communist leader, I was curious to know
what type of sensitive work he was trying to get into, and his answer,
as I said, was unusual.
He said he was applying for a different type of work on teeth. In
other words, it was sensitive teeth he was dealing with, which did not
make any sense to me.
Mr. Williams. Did this provoke a question from someone on the
staff during the hearing directed to his commanding general?
Senator McCarthy. I asked his commanding general if he would
tell us what sensitive work this Communist had applied for.
Mr. Williams. I now direct your attention, Senator McCarthy, to
the record which is before you.
Senator McCarthy. What page ?
Mr. Williams. Page 136, and I ask you if that was the first interro-
gation of General Zwicker, in either open or closed session, by you or
by any member of the staff, or of the committee.
Senator McCarthy. This was the first interrogation by the com-
mittee. However, he had been interrogated by members of the staff,
Mr. Jim Juliana, prior to that time.
Mr. Williams. I will come to that in just a moment.
I now direct your attention. Senator, to the record, page 136, and
ask you whether or not you requested General Zwicker to find out
what the nature of the sensitive work was, for which Major Peress
applied ?
Senator McCarthy. That's right.
Mr. Williams. Did he respond ?
Senator McCarthy. No; he told me he would not give me that
information. If I may quote him verbatim, he said
The Chairman. Will vou read the question you asked him, as well?
Senator McCarthy. Yes. I said to him :
I wonder if you can do this : You are appearing this afternoon in executivtj
session. I would like to have you here to listen to all of this testimony. If you
have an aide with you, I wonder if you could have somebody call Camp Kilmer
and find out just what the sensitive work was that he was being considered for.
General Zwicker. Even if I did know, I would not be privileged to tell you,
under the Executive order which forbids us to discuss matters of that nature.
May I say in connection with this, Mr. Chairman, the order upon
which Zwicker relied was not the Presidential order, by an order of
the Army, which, according to him, provided that they could not give
security information, unless they had permission from the Assistant
Chief of Staff.
The Chairman. Do you have in your possession a copy of that
order ?
Senator McCarthy. No, I do not. He did not supply a copy of
the order.
I pointed out to him that I thought this was not security informa-
tion, but asked him, in the event, assuming it was, would he ask
the Assistant Cliief of Staff of G2 to give him permission to tell us
the truth about this matter; and he said, "No, I will not." He refused
to ask for permission to give us information, and said, "I would rely
upon the order, and though I have information, I cannot give you
the information."
Mr. Williams. To your knowledge, then, or to your knowledge now,
is there any Executive order which precluded General Zwicker from
52461—54 13
188 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
simply stating tlie nature of those sensitive works for wliicli Major
Peress applied?
Senator McCarthy. Definitely not, on a Truman order or on an
Eisenhower order, so far as I know: and I think anyone versed in
the law would state that neither applied to this question.
Mr. Williams. Prior to General Zwicker's appearance before the
committee — I am talking about his appearance in the courtroom at
Foley Square, which was described for us this morning by Mr.
Harding — prior to that time, had you had any member of the com-
mittee staff interview General Zwicker?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, Mr. Jim Juliana had interviewed him.
Mr. Williams. Do you know how long prior to February 18 that
was?
Senator McCarthy. It was several days prior to that. I would not
know the number of days.
Mr. Williams. In your function as chairman of the coimnittee, was
a report made to you as to General Zwicker's interview with Mr.
Juliana ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes. I discussed this in detail with Mr.
Juliana.
Mr. WiLLL\MS. What did you except to develop from General
Zwicker when you requested his presence on the 18th of February
1954?
Senator McCarthy. Wlien he was not under oath, he was talking
to Mr. Juliana, and he said
The Chairman. Just a moment. I think, Senator, that is hearsay,
without question.
Mr. Williams. I offer it for this reason, ]\Ir. Chairman — and I see
the point of your objection, of course. I offer it for this reason. Cer-
tainly, in going to the state of mind of the chairman of the committee
as General Zwicker took the stand, as you can appreciate, being a law-
yer and judge yourself, Mr. Chairman — it is necessary to know what
information he had been led to believe he would get from General
Zwicker as a result of the interview of the staff.
Now, in every lawsuit we learn, as you know, you cannot interview
every witness. We have to rely on other people to interview the wit-
nesses, and they bring us reports as to what the witness will testify to.
Sometimes the witnesses "fence." Sometimes they don't say what we
are led to believe they are going to say; and that, of course, often
affects the vigorousness of the examination which we conduct; such
as this morning, here. I had the very experience. I had been led to
believe that a witness was going to testify to certain things, and when
he took the stand, I was very much surprised.
I think this goes to the state of mind of the examiner, and, for that
reason, I respectfully urge you, sir, to allow this to go in.
The Chairman. You think it has sometthing to do with the ques-
tion of the conduct of the Senator from Wisconsin ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. I may say further
The Chairman. Of course, I can readily understand that in a re-
port of that kind, if it were permitted to appear in the record, it would
involve a lot of other people and get off into all sorts of diversions.
But I am just wondering where we are headed.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 189
Mr. Williams. I assure you we are not headed anywhere but to a
direct answer to a question as to what Senator McCarthy expected
this witness would testify to, as a result of the official report made by
the staff investigator who interviewed him a few days ago.
The Chairman. And you are now referring to General Zwicker?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Juliana reported to me — I might say this
was an official report from the staff member to the committee — that
Zwicker said that he had objected to the discharge; that he talked to
the Pentagon — he did not tell me who he talked to at the Pentagon —
and that he was ordered to give Peress an immediate discharge after
my letter to Stevens came out.
The Chairman. One further observation in respect to this ruling.
It is not permitted in testimony on the theory that what he was being
told was the truth, or even as what General Zwicker said; but that
it was reported to him by one of his examiners. With that under-
standing
Mr. Williams. Surely.
The Chairman. I understand you are not claiming that when the
agent reported it was the truth, or that General Zwicker even said it ?
Mr. Williams. I do claim it was the truth, but I expect to prove
that through others.
The Chairman. I know, but you are not offering this for that
purpose.
Mr. Williams. Not for this purpose.
The Chairman. All right.
Senator McCarthy. In answer, without elaborating
The Chairman. Is that classified material?
]Mr. Williams. I think what the Senator has testified to is not classi-
fied, if I understand that question. Pie is able to recount what his
investigator told him.
Senator McCarthy. A personnel matter, not a security matter.
The Chairman. It is a report of one of your own investigators ?
Senator McCarthy. Right.
The Chairman. All right, proceed.
Senator McCarthy. And I might say, also, that this involves per-
sonnel matters, not a security matter. In brief, he said that the dis-
charge was the result of a call he had gotten from the Pentagon,
ordering him to discharge — in other words, to remove him from the
jurisdiction of tlie Army. I felt that was significant, especially in
view of the fact that legal counsel for the Army had spent the previous
afternoon with General Zwicker.
The Chairman. Now, you are permitted to tell what this agent
reported to you — not your own feeling. Let us get one thing at a time.
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. WiLLLVMS. Now, your session, your open session, recessed,
according to the record, at 12 :15 ; is that right?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Williams. And that was the last open session that day by the
investigating committee?
Senator McCarthy. That's right.
Mr. Williams. General Zwicker did not testify until much later in
the afternoon ; is that correct ?
190 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
If I can explain why the hearin<r was held up, I went over to the
hospital and arranged for a different room for Jean and got a report
on her injury from the doctor, discussed the matters in detail with
the doctor, which took some time.
Mr. Williams. So that General Zwicker, in fact, did not take the
stand that afternoon until 4 : 80 ?
Senator McCarthy. That apparently is correct.
Mr. Williams. Can you tell us who was there present?
Senator McCarthy. The record shows present: Koy Cohn, chief
counsel ; Daniel Buckley, assistant counsel ; Harold Rainville, admin-
istrative assistant to Senator Dirksen; Robert Jones, administrative
assistant to Senator Potter, and James N. Juliana, investigator, and
my memory would bear that out.
Mr. Williams. Now, I want to call your attention, Senator
The Chairman. May I inquire?
I thought the witness said Senator Dirksen was there; is that right?
Senator McCarthy. No. Dirksen's administrative assistant was
there.
The Chairman. I beg your pardon. I misunderstood you.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Rainville was there for Senator Dirksen, Mr.
Chairman.
I want to call your attention, Senator, for what I shall call, for
purpose of identification, the first key question that was asked of
General Zwicker, and I direct your attention to page 146 and to the
question :
You know —
and I am quoting you —
that somebody signed or authorized an honorable discharge for this man, knowing
that he was a fifth-amendment Communist; do you not?
Now, did you get an immediate response to that question?
Senator McCarthy. I did not. The answer I got was he thinks
he is. I asked him whether he knew the discharge was signed, knowing
that he was a fifth-amendment Communist. His answer was :
I know that an honorable discharge was signed for the man.
No answer to the question.
Mr. Williams. Now, I tliink this is very important, so I want to
ask you some questions about the general context of this line of inter-
rogation ; but, before I do, I want you to point out, if you will, Senator,
to the committee where you got the first answer to this question.
Senator McCarthy. I believe it is over on page 148, where I said —
and I am not reading the entire question, just the pertinent part :
Now, is it your testimony now that at tlie time you read the stories about
Major Peress'tliat you did not know that he had refused to answer questions
before this committee about his Communist activities?
General Zwicker. 1 am sure I iiad that impresison.
That was about a page and a half later, thereafter, of cross-examina-
tion,
Mr. Williams. How much later in point of time was it that you got
your answer?
Senator McCarthy. Could I just, Mr. Williams, point out some-
thing which has a direct bearing upon this? On page 146 — I wonder
if the committee has a copy of the testimony.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 191
The Chairman. We are short of copies. I understand they are out
of print, and we haven't been able to get them.
Senator McCarthy. Let me
Mr. Williams. I think it is important-
Senator McCarthy. I wish the committee had copies of this.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman.
Senator McCarthy. I would like to show the
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Just a moment.
Senator McCarthy. I am sorry.
The Chairman. Senator Case.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, may we have the answers to the ques-
tions ?
A few moments ago the Senator said he received an evasive answer.
It seems to me the committee should have the benefit of a direct answer,
whatever it may be.
Mr. Williams. We are going to go through that.
Senator Case. And let the committee judge whether or not it was
evasive.
The Chairman. Will you inform us what page
Mr. Williams. I have directed the Senator's attention at the out-
set to page 146, and the question I had reference to in my question
is a question that appears at about two-thirds of the way down that
page in the printed record, quoting the Chairman :
You know that somebody signed or authorized an honorable discharge for
this man, Ivuowing that he was a fifth-amendment Communist, do you not?
General Zwicker's answer is :
I know that an honorable discharge was signed for the man.
That is the direct answer, Senator Case.
Now, I am going to ask you, if you will
Senator McCarthy. I think I should read the next few ques-
tions
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Senator McCarthy. To put this in context.
Question :
The day the honorable discharge was signed were you aware of the fact
Senator Stennis. Pardon me. Wliere are you?
Senator McCarthy. Page 146. It is the last one-fifth of the page.
The first question was :
Do you know that somebody signed it?
The question I am reading is :
The day the honorable discharge was signed were you aware of the fact that
he had appeared before our committee?
General Zwicker. I was.
And had refused to answer certain questions?
No, sir ; not specifically on answering any questions.
Now, I would like to have the committee — this will show why it
was necessary to rather vigorously cross-examine this man — jump
over to this question :
Did you know that he refused to answer questions about his Communist
activities?
Specifically, I don't believe so.
192 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. Here.
Senator McCarthy. Oh, yes. I beg your pardon. I skipped one.
One of the first we have is on page 146. He says, "No, sir", when asked
whether he knew this man had refused to answer questions.
Then on page 147, about 10 or 12 questions later :
But now you indicate that you did know he refused to^
No.
Mr. Williams (reading) :
But now you indicate that you did not know that he refused to tell about his
Communist activities; is that correct?
The answer is :
I know that he refused to answer questions for the committee.
Senator McCarthy. So that here he changes his story. First he
says:
No, sir ; I didn't know he refused to answer questions.
Then the next question:
Did you know that he refused to answer questions about his Communist
activities'?
Specifically, I don't believe so.
Then a number of questions later I said to him, in cross-exami-
nation :
Now, is it your testimony now that at the time you read the stories on Major
Peress that you did not know that he had refused to answer questions before this
committee about his Communist activities?
General Zwicker. I am sure I had that impression.
So, you find first the General says :
I didn't know he refused to answer any question.
Then he says :
Yes, I knew he refused to answer questions, but not about Communist activ-
ities.
And then, finally, after being pressed, he says :
Yes, I am sure I had the impression he refused to answer questions about
Communist activities.
I merely cite that. Senators, so you will realize the difficulty I had
with this witness and why it was necessary to cross-examine him in
detail when he changed his story three times. It was important for
me to get the facts here.
Mr. WiLLiAiMs. Senator, I want to direct your attention to page 147,
and also members of the committee, about one-third of the way down
the printed page where the chairman asks :
Did you have that general picture?
General Zwicker answered :
I believe I remember reading in the paper that he had taken refuge in the fifth
amendment to avoid answering questions before the committee.
And what were the next questions. Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. I said :
About communism.
The answer :
I am not too certain about that.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 193
Do you want me to read on here, Mr. Williams ?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Senator McCarthy (reading) :
Do you mean that you did not have enough interest in the case, General,
the case of this major who was in your command, to get some idea of what
questions he had refused to answer? Is that correct?
General Zwicker. I think that is not putting it quite right, Mr. Chairman.
The Chaieman. You put it right, then.
And here is the answer :
I have great interest in all of the oflScers of my conunand, with whatever
they do.
Let's sticlj to fifth-amendment Communists. Let's stick to him. You told
us vou read the press releases.
I did.
But now you indicate that you did not know that he refused to tell about
his Communist activities; is that correct?
Listen to this answer, if you will, especially you lawyers on the
committee :
I know that he refused to answer questions for the committee.
Did you know that he refused to answer questions about his Communist
activities?
Answer :
Specifically, I don't believe so.
Then, shifting over to the next page, when asked practically the
same question, he says :
I am sure I had that impression.
So, you have a general here who, for some unusual reason, is com-
pletely evasive. First he says :
I didn't know he refused to answer questions.
Then he says :
Yes, I know he refused to answer questions, but not about communism.
And then later he says :
Yes, I knew he refused to answer questions about communism.
Mr. Wnj^iAMS. Now, would you tell the committee approximately
how much time elapsed between the time you first put the question
and the time that General Zwicker answered, "I am sure I had that
impression" ?
Senator McCarthy. I couldn't ^ive you that in time, Mr. Williams.
It was a long, laborious truth-pullmg job.
Mr. Williams. Now, General Zwicker, in response to a question
that you propounded to him, said that he had read the press releases on
the Peress case after Peress' appearance in executive session.
Can you tell the committee when those press releases appeared?
Senator McCarthy. It was prior to the press release, I believe, of
February 1. The press releases dealt almost exclusively with his re-
fusal to answer questions about Communist activities before the com-
mittee.
The Chairman. May I inquire for the purpose of the record, what
press releases are you referring to ? Whose press releases ?
Senator McCarthy. I am referring, Mr. Chairman, to the letter
which I wrote to the Secretary of the Army Stevens in which I pointed
194 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
out all of the facts, asked for his court martial and also, Mr. Chair-
man, we have followed the practice wherever in executive session there
are a number of individuals present where there is a lawyer present
who can go on and give the story of calling in the press and giving the
press the general picture without giving the name of the witness.
However, Peress had given his name so that his name was in the press
on the 30th of January and the press carried the story about all of his
refusals to answer. So there were two stories.
The Chairman. To be absolutely fair about it, do you know whether
or not the newspapers published in full your press release?
Senator McCarthy. I saw the press releases and they published
them in detail, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. In what papers? Of course, we have a lot of
papers.
Senator McCarthy. All the wire services carried the stories and
I think they carried very fair and very complete stories.
The Chairman. Did you supply the general with copies of these
press releases? I mean, General Zwicker?
Senator McCarthy. No ; he said he had read the press releases.
The Chairman. The reason I am asking you these questions is that
sometimes people are supplied with a copy of the press release by the
person who makes the press release and they get it that way; at other
times they probably have to wait and get it in the paper and some-
times the papers do not carry in full all the press releases — at least, I
have had that experience.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, the reason Mr. Peress was
given no press releases was
The Chairman. I don't mean Major Peress; I mean General
Zwicker.
Senator McCarthy. I am sorry — was because I had addressed my
letter to the Secretary of the Army; asked him for a court-martial
of not only Peress but all of those who were responsible for his pro-
motion, his plush-duty orders, knowing that he was a Communist;
and I did not write to Zwicker because I could not conceive. Mr. Chair-
man, Zwicker taking it upon himself to give an honorable discharge
to a man guilty of a felony, guilty of Communist activities.
Mr. Williams. I want to call the attention of the witness and the
Chair to the question at page 148, approximately one-third of the way
down the printed page:
The Chairman. Did you also read the stories about my letter to Secretary of
the Army Stevens in which I requested, or rather, suggested that this man be
court-martialed, and that anyone that protected him or covered up for him be
courc-martialed ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Is that what you based your answer on that Gen-
eral Zwicker had seen the press release?
Senator McCarthy. Not only that press story but the previous
press story.
Mr. WiLLTAiMS. I did not say Peress story.
Senator McCarthy. The press; not only this press story but there
was a previous press story about Peress in which the newspapers car-
ried the information about his refusal to answer on the grounds of
the fifth amendment.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 195
Mr. Williams. Now, I want to call your attention, Senator, to a
(question at page 148, and I am now referring to the last third of the
page, of the printed record.
Mr. Cohn asked :
Who did you talk to? You talked to somebody?
And the answer that is reported here emanating from General
Zwicker :
No; I did not.
Was that in conformity with or at war with the report that you
had received from your investigator, Mr. Juliana?
Senator Ervin. That seems to be a conclusion rather than evidence.
The Chairman. I would say to the Senator and also to Mr. Williams
that considerable of the material that the Senator is bringing before
use is alignment and I have not ordered him to desist on that. We
would like to get a straight-out statement on evidence, if we can, but
I realize the tendency is for lawyers to argue and to testify. I would
be guilty of that myself in the same position.
Mr. Williams. I do not intend to argue the case at this time, I
assure you, but I think it is terribly important here for this witness
to let us know what the atmosphere was of this proceeding as he went
along; and to point out why it was necessary to cross-examine this
witness vigorously as he saw it at that time.
The Chairman. We will permit him to relate the facts. However,
we are not inclined to be too strict with the interpretation of the rule
but we think we ought to reasonably keep within it.
Senator McCarthy. The answer is : This is in conflict not only with
the report received from Mr. Juliana but also in conflict with the
testimony of Major Peress who testified in the record which you
have before you that he went in to see Zwicker, and that he asked for
an investigation.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Ervin.
Senator Ervin. He is contrasting this evidence with something else
out of the record.
Senator McCarthy. The Peress testimony is in the record.
Senator Ervin. Let him call our attention to these things and let
us draw the conclusions.
Mr. Williams. That is what we are trying to do, Senator Ervin,
but it is perfectly impossible to portiuxy what was in the mind of the
cross-examiner unless we ask him the questions which motivated his
interrogation and which motivated his cross-examination of General
Zwicker as we are proceeding.
I know of no other way to put defensive material in on this issue.
So I must ask him about evasiveness on the part of General Zwicker
and about the conflicts in the testimony of General Zwicker with other
sworn testimony in the record and with the report that he had received
about what General Zwicker would testify to when he was called before
the committee.
I am sure that Senator Ervin, as a lawyer, has tried many cases and
has sat on the bench and can appreciate what goes on in the mind
of an examiner when he is confronted with answers which he is led to
believe which would be otherwise.
196 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator Ervin. He has testified as to what he had been led to believe.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Let me read the record.
Senator Ervin. Wasn't the statement made ? I think we can assume
that we have enough memory to remember some of these things.
Senator McCarthy. Let me read the record.
The Chairman. Just a moment ; let Senator Ervin finish.
Mr. Williams. Senator Ervin, the reason I am calling this to your
attention is that the part of the record which we are now about to
offer has not heretofore been introduced in evidence, so I don't assume
that you have read it.
The Chairman. Senator Ervin, will you get a little closer to your
microphone ? It is difficult for us to get your words. The microphones
are not too sensitive and it means we have to get rather close to them.
Senator Ervin. I may have misconstrued the evidence but what I
understood was — you were asking the Senator whether a certain thing
was in harmony with what he had been led by Mr. Juliana to expect
the witnesss would testify to.
Mr. Williams. That was one of my questions. Senator. The ques-
tion now, what I am addressing the witness' attention to is the con-
flict between this testimony and the testimony of the witness who had
testified just previously to him.
Senator Ervin. You are putting both together, as I understood it,
though. The point I was making, the things you already testified you
would agree for us to draw conclusions as to.
Mr. Williams. I appreciate your ability to draw the conclusions if
the part I had reference to were in the record, but it is not in here ;
that is why I want to introduce it at this time.
Senator McCarthy. Could I read the Peress testimony that I re-
ferred to?
The Chairman. Are you going to offer that in evidence ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Wliy not do it now and we will have it before us.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir, that is what I want to do.
Senator McCarthy. Can I read it ?
The Chairman. If you will read it all without interruptions so we
can get it ; then you can make your comment.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, sir.
Senator McCarthy. As I said, Mr. Chairman, this was in conflict
with Peress's testimony and I would like to read that testimony now
on page 125.
The Chairihan. Just a moment, now; page 125. That was m the
public hearings?
Senator McCarthy. Public session.
The Chairman. Was General Zwicker there?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. When this testimony was given ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I mean the witness. I was asking the question of
the witness. Mr. Williams.
Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir; he was there.
I am reading, Mr. Chairman, from the third question from the
bottom.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 197
«
The Chairman. Who is the highest ranliing oflScer with whom you spoke after
your appearance before the committee?
Mr. Peress. General Zwicker.
The Chairman. General Zwicker? What conversation did you have with Gen-
eral Zwicker?
And the record sliowr: that the witness conferred with his counsel.
He says :
Would you repeat that question, please?
The Chairman. Will the reporter read the question?
(The reporter read from his notes as requested.)
which would have been, "What conversation did you have with General
Zwicker ? "
Mr. Peress. I don't recall the exact word-for-word conversation. I requested
of General Zwicker, after the hearing before you on January 30, when I saw him
on February 1, that an inquiry be made into these charges, that the newspapers
had lambasted me with on Sunday and Monday.
The Chairman. Did you tell him whether or not you were a Communist?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question on the grounds
The Chairman. You wanted an inquiry made as to whether or not you are a
Communist; is that correct?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. I wanted an inquiry of my conduct at Camp Kilmer.
The Chairman. Did you want the inquiry to include the question of whether
or not you had been holding Communist meetings at your home, whether you had
attended a Communist leadership school, whether you had been recruiting military
personnel there into the Communist conspiracy? Did you want that included?
Senator McCarthy. Again the record shows the witness conferred,
with his counsel.
Then to go on reading on page 126, just about the middle of the
page, Mr. Peress said :
I could not tell them what to inquire about, but I asked for an inquiry of
the charges generally. I didn't specify as to which charges to inquire into and
which not to inquire into.
And Mr. Chairman, I pointed that out, because this is important,
if I may, not merely because it is in contradiction, if I may, with
Zwicker's testimony, but also this indicates that if Peress were not
perjuring himself, then he was not asking for
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, is it not for the committee to de-
termine for what it is important? Let us get the evidence and let
the committee draw the conclusions.
Mr. WiLiAMS. We are anxious to call these things to the commit-
tee's attention. Senator, so that the committee can better understand
what was in the mind of the cross-examiner as he pursued his in-
quiry with this witness.
The Chairman. Have the Senator finish the reading of the testi-
mony that he wants to read. I suggested that and I thought that
was to be the arrangement, that he would read it through and then
make such comments as would be within the rule of evidence.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. That is all of the Peress testimony that I
have in mind.
If I may say this, Senator: In answer to a question as to why I
commented on this, I have been accused of the
Senator Case. I beg the pardon of the Senator. I did not ask why
you commented on it. I just suggested that the comment was in the
nature of a conclusion and the committee should draw the conclusions.
198 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator McCarthy. Would you bear with me for one minute,
Senator Case?
I have been accused of abusing General Zwicker. I am showing
here that his testimony is in complete conflict with other testimony
taken under oath that day, and in conflict with the reports gotten
from the investigation.
Senator Case. This Senator and the committee is interested in see-
ing the conflicts.
Senator McCarthy. Very w^ell.
Mr. Williams. Senator, I want to call your attention now, sir, to
page 149 of the record, at the bottom, and I ask you to read that
question and the answer that immediately follows.
Senator McCarthy (reading) :
The Chairman. Let me ask this question : If this man —
meaning Peress
The Chairman. Will you please indicate where you are starting?
Senator McCarthy. The last question on page 149 :
Let me ask this question : If this man —
meaning Peress —
after the order came up, after the order of the 18th came up, prior to his getting
an honorable discharge, were guilty of some crime, let us say that he held up
a bank or stole an automobile — and you heard of that the day before — let us say
you heard of it the same day that you heard of my letter — could you then have
taken steps to prevent his discharge, or would he have automatically been
discharged?
General Zwicker. I would have definitely taken steps to prevent discharge.
Mr. Williams. Now, Senator, pursuing this so that we have the
natural course of your line of interrogation, I want to direct your
attention to the question that is propounded one-fourth of the way
down page 150, beginning with the last sentence.
Senator McCarthy. "You said"? Oh, I see, I will read that now:
The Chairman. Let us say be went out and stole $50 the night before.
General Zwicker. He wouldn't have been discharged.
The Chairman. Do you think stealing $50 is more serious than being a traitor
to the country as part of the Communist conspiracy?
General Zwicker. That, sir, was not my decision.
The Chairman. You said if you learned that he stole $50, you would have pre-
vented his discharge. You did learn something much more serious than that. You
learned that he had refused to tell whether he was a Communist. You learned
that the chairman of a Senate committee suggested he be court martialed. And
you say if he had stolen $50, he would not have gotten the honorable discharge.
But merely being a part of a Communist conspii'acy, and the chairman of the
committee asking that he be court martialed, would not give you grounds for
holding up his discharge. Is that correct?
General Zwicker. Under the terms of this letter, that is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Williams. Now, thereafter, did you ask the general whether
there was anything — —
Senator McCarthy. Could I read the next question, Mr. Williams;
I think it is pertinent.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. This is the statement by the chairman :
That letter says nothing about stealing $50, and it does not say anything about
being a Communist. It does not say anything about his appearance before our
committee. He appeared before our committee after that order was made out.
Do you think you sound a bit ridiculous, General, when you say that for $50,
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 199
you would prevent his being discharged, but for being a part of the conspiracy
to destroy this country, you could not prevent his discharge?
And may I say, Mr. Chairman, I think he looked extremely ridicu-
lous.
Mr. WiLT.TAMS. Did you ask him whether there was anything in the
letter on the Peress di'scliaroe which gave him authorization to hold
up the discharge for criminal conduct?
The Chairman. Just a moment before you answer that. The letter
itself will be the best evidence. Do you have a copy of that letter?
Senator McCarthy. I do not.
The Chairman. Was one offered to you at that time ?
Senator McCarthy. I was allowed to read it at that time. I think
it was handed back to the (ireneral.
The Chairman. You did not receive it in evidence? You did not
make it a part of the record ?
Mr. Williams. The general was asked about it and answered fully.
Senator McCarthy. I do not believe it is a part of the record.
The Chairman. Ordinarily it is better if we have the letter so that
we can know what it is about.
Mr. Williams. I wish we had it, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I think possibly we can get a copy of it. I thought
probably the Senator had received it at that time.
Senator McCarthy. I do not believe it was produced.
Mr. Williams. I would certainly appreciate it if the chairman
would exercise his prerogative in obtaining a copy of the letter and
placing it into this record.
The Chairman. We will attempt to get a copy of that letter and
will put it in the record as soon as we find it.
Mr. WiLLL\MS. Senator, without going over this transcript question
by question, let me ask you ihis by way of recap and by way of sum-
mary : Was it General Zwicker's position as he testified here that if
he had learned that Major Peress had stolen $50, he could have
stopped his discharge and would have stopped liis discharge, but the
knowledge of the fact that he had been a member of the Communist
Party and had falsified his Army affidavits on that subject, that knowl-
edge was not enough to preclude the honorable discharge that wa?
given to him on February 1 ?
Is that a fair statement of his position on this record ?
The Chairman. That is calling for the conclusion of a witness and
is more or less in the nature of argument.
Can we get to the facts as they appeared ?
I suggest. Mr. Williams, we ought to confine ourselves to the facts
and not make arguments.
Mr. AViixiAMS. Mr Chairman, the trouble with these facts are that
you cannot state them without their sounding like a powerful argu-
ment.
The Chairman. Well, the record itself, I think, is a pretty good
evidence and is probably the best evidence as to what was said and
done. If there was anything else that was done or said that does
not appear in the record, that can be given to the committee.
Mr. Williams. AVhat I was trying to do was to cover a couple of
pages of this colloquy by one yes or no answer and then get to the part
in dispute here.
The Chairman. Obviously it calls for an argument.
200 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator McCarthy. Could I read the question that perhaps answers
Mr. Williams' question which appears at the bottom of page 151, the
last question, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. You may read it.
Senator McCarthy. It reads as follows :
The Chairman. Let's say one of the trusted privates in your command came
in to you and said, "General, I was just downtown and I have evidence that
Major Peress brolve into a store and stole $50." You would not discharge him
until you had checked the facts, seen whether or not the private was telling
the truth, and seen whether or not he had stolen the $50?
General Zwicker. No, I don't believe I would.
I would make a check, certainly, to check the story.
Mr. Williams. Now, I want to ask you this. Senator: Did there
come a time when you asked General Zwicker to state his position on
the overall policy which permitted this kind of discharge to be made
in the light of the known facts at the time it was made ?
Senator McCarthy. I did.
Mr. WiTLiAMS. I direct your attention to page 152 and I ask you
if you will read that question which immediately precedes the colloquy
which is in dispute here.
Senator McCarthy. You refer to the last question on page 152 ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy (reading) :
The Chairman. Let us assume that John Jones is a major in the United
States Army. Let us assume that there is sworn testimony to the effect that
he is part of the Communist conspiracy, has attended Communist leadership
schools. Let us assume that Maj. John Jones is under oath before a committee
and says, "I cannot tell you the truth about these charges because, if I did, I
fear that might tend to incriminate me." Then let us say that General Smith
was responsible for this man I'eceiving an honorable discharge, knowing these
facts. Do you think that General Smith should be removed from the military
or do you think that he should be kept on in it?
Mr. Williams. Did you add to the hypothesis of that question on
page 153?
Senator McCarthy. I added to it the fact that we are referring to
General Smith, who originated the order directing the separation and
not a general who was merely following out orders.
The Chairman. May I ask at this point, so it will be clear as we
go along, Senator, since we do not have the letter here, did not the
letter direct General Zwicker to release this man ?
Senator McCarthy. It directed honorable discharge for this man
within a period of 90 days. It gave, it apparently gave Peress the
discretion to decide when he would be released, and that is why, Mr.
Chairman, I read the testimony of Mr. Peress when he said he went in.
I did not ask for his release. I asked for an inquiry.
Zwicker knew that there could be no inquiry after his release.
Therefore, it was not Peress who asked for the discharge, if we can
believe Peress.
Of course, I might say I do not believe a Communist under oath.
The Chairman. That is hardly material here. Probably a lot of
people would agree with you on that. What we are trying to get at
are the material facts in this inquiry.
Mr. Williams. This question that you posed to General Zwicker
contained the hypothesis at page 152 and an added hypothesis on page
153.
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 201
Mr. Williams. You are asking him about liis attitude toward a
general who originated the order that gave an honorable discharge
to a known Communist after he had taken the fifth amendment before
your committee; is that right?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Mr. Williams. Did General Zw^cker answer that question immedi-
ately ?
Senator McCarthy. No; he claimed he did not understand it.
You will notice on page 153, let me see :
The Chairman. The reporter will repeat it.
And then a few lines down further it says :
(The question was reread by the reporter.)
So that it was repeated twice.
Mr. Williams. This was the third time ; was it ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes; this was the third time it was repeated.
Mr. Williams. Let me ask you this question :
What was General Zwicker's answer as to whether or not the Gen-
eral who originated the order, the policymaking general who origi-
nated the order giving the honorable discharge to an officer who was
a member of the Communist Party who had taken the fifth amend-
ment while in the Army and before his discharge, what was his an-
swer with respect to what should be done concerning that situation,
that particular general?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Williams, let me say this question does
not contain all the facts I asked the General. I asked him :
* * * Let us assume that there is sworn testimony to the effect that he is
part of the Communist conspiracy, has attended Communist leadership schools.
Let us assume that Maj. John Jones is under oath before a committee and says,
"I cannot tell you the truth about these charges because, if I did, I fear that
might tend to incriminate me."
And then I say :
The Chairman. Let us say he is the man who signed the orders. Let us say
General Smith is the man who originated the order.
I asked whether he should be removed from the military.
And then down in the middle of page 153 the answer of General
Zwicker is given as:
I do not think he should be removed from the military.
Mr. Williams. "Wliat did you say in response to that? Will you
read that?
The Chairman. Let me be clear on that. Wlio are you speaking
of who should be removed from the military? Is this Peress or the
General ?
Senator McCarthy. I said :
Let us assume that John Jones is a major in the United States Army. Let
us assume that there is sworn testimony to the effect that he is part of the
Communist conspiracy, has attended Communist leadership schools. Let us
assume that Maj. John Jones is under oath before a committee and says, "I
cannot tell you the truth about these charges because, if I did, I fear that
might tend to incriminate me." Then let us say that General Smith was re-
sponsible for this man receiving an honorable discharge knowing these facts.
Do you think that General Smith should be removed from the military or do
you think he should be kept on in it?
202 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The Chairman. Tliat is what I wanted cleared up, whether you were
referring to the Major or General Smith being removed.
Senator McCarthy. I refer to the General. I make it clear on page
153 that I am not referring to a general obeying orders but one
originating orders.
The Chairman. The purpose of that question, obviously, was to
get the attitude of General Zwicker with respect to some other general.
Senator McCarthy. It was to find out, Mr. Chairman, whether
there was Communist infiltration, whether it was condoned, whether
the commanding officer condoned it and allowed an honorable dis-
charge.
I wanted to get his attitude, and that is part of the Government
Operations Committee, to investigate efficiency, economy ; well, intelli-
gence, if you please, of those operating in the Government at all levels,
and I was concerned to find out why they allowed it to continue.
I wanted to get the attitude of this general who was the commanding
officer.
And he said :
I do not think he should be removed from the military.
And then you asked for my answer to that. I said, which appears
near the bottom of page 153 :
The Chairman. Then, General, you should be removed from any command.
Any man who has been given the honor of being promoted to general and who
says, "I will protect another general who protected Communists" is not fit to
wear that uniform. General. I think it is a tremendous disgrace to the Army
to have this sort of thing given to the public. I intend to give it to them. I
have a duty to do that. I intend to repeat to the press exactly what you said.
So you know that. You will be back here. General.
Mr. Williams. Now then, did you say, "You are not fit to wear
the uniform" ?
Senator McCarthy. No, I said he was not fit to wear the uniform of
a general, and I think he was not. I think any man who says that
it is right to give honorable discharges to known Communists is not
fit to wear the uniform of a general.
I said it then. I wall say it now. I will say it again. I feel that
as strongly as I feel anything.
Mr. Williams. Has this statement been quoted, or should I say mis-
quoted, to read frequently "Is not fit to wear the uniform"?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, it has been quoted to that effect.
Mr. Williams. By that statement were you impunging his judg-
ment, or were you impunging liis loyalty?
Senator McCarthy. Not his loyalty. He might be completely loyal
and feel that Communists could get honorable discharges.
I felt that his judgment was bad beyond words when we have such
a tremendous military force spending billions of dollars to defend this
country against communism, and then have a general say in effect: "It
is all riffht to give Communists honorable discharges."
Mr. Williams. Did General Zwicker thereafter in the interrogation
change his position?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, he did.
Mr. Williams. Would you point that out ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 203
Senator McCarthy. On page 154 he says, or, rather, I said :
Do you think that the higher authority would be guilty of improper conduct?
General Zwicker. It is conceivable.
The Chairman. Do you thinlj they are guilty of improper conduct here?
General Zwicker. I am not their judge, sir.
The Chairman. Do you think to order the honorable discharge for a Com-
munist major was improper conduct?
General Zwicker. I think it was improper procedure, sir.
Mr. WiixiAMS. Then I call your attention to page 154, immediately
above that wliere _vou say, "Let me ask one question."
Will you read that colloquy?
Senator McCarthy (reading) :
Let me ask one question.
In other words, you think it is proper to give an honorable discharge to a
man known to be a Communist?
General Zwicker. No, I do not.
Senator Stennts. Where is that, please?
Senator McCarthy. That is on page 154, about one-fourth of the
way down the page.
Mr. Cohn asked the question. I beg your pardon; the Chairman
asked the question.
The Chairman. Senator, just so we will not miss getting all of this
matter before us so that we may properly evaluate it, I call your at-
tention to page 152, after the long question when you were talking
about John Jones as a major, maybe you omitted the question inten-
tionally, but you did not read General Zwicker's answer when he
said:
He should be by all means kept if he were acting under competent orders to
separate that man.
Senator McCarthy. Yes, but then I pointed out. Senator, that I
referred to, I said, to the man who originated the order directing the
separation.
Mr. Williams. The question as shown on page 153, and as read
by the reporter over twice was that the question was directed to the
man who originated the order, not the man who was acting under
competent orders. That was the purpose of the clarifying question
at page 153, the man who originated the order, and that was the ques-
tion posed the next two times on that page to which the final answer
was given. Senator.
• I want to call your attention in this^ record to page 155. Was there
a question propounded again to General Zwicker as to whether he
had talked to anyone in Washington about the Peress case?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, about one-fourth of the way down the
page you will find the question :
Did you talk to anyone in Washington?
General Zwicker. No, sir, about this case.
Mr. Williams. The next question is what?
Senator McCarthy (reading) :
Within the week preceeding his discharge?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
Mr. WiLLL\.MS. Senator, I want to ask you to describe if you will
in the most accurate manner, but in a very brief time the demeanor,
the attitude, of this witness as he testified before the committee.
524^^l— 54 14
204 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
•
Senator McCarthy. I would say he was one of the most arrogant,
one of the most evasive witnesses, that I have ever had before my
committee, one of the most irritating.
The Chairman. Just what did he do, other than answer the ques-
tions? Was there something with respect to his manner? We have
the record before us as to what he said. It is somewhat in the nature
of a conchision, but if you can get us some of the facts that helped
you to arrive at that conclusion, we would appreciate it, because we did
not see it. We were not there.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, you have been a judge for
quite some time. It is impossible to describe in detail the arrogance
of a witness. He shows it when he appears before a committee. He
displayed it that morning when he sat in the audience calling me
a S. O. B. because
The CHi^iRMAN. You did not know about that.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman.
The Chahiman. You did not know about that at the time you were
examining him.
Senator McCarthy. I did not, but the attitude was in complete
keeping with it, Mr. Chairman. All you do is to look for demeanor
of a witness, his attitude, his evasiveness, and you know as a judge
and as a lawyer that you cannot put your finger on specific items.
You have got to sum the whole attitude up in one parcel, and I merely
mentioned the morning because I knew about that, to show that
his attitude in the afternoon was in keeping with his attitude in the
morning. His attitude on the stand was about the same as ii\ the
morning; in other words, that the chairman was an S. O. B. and he
wouldn't answer unless he had to.
The Chairman. Of course, we heard the other witness. You are
assuming, of course, that what he said was the truth. We do not
know all of the meaning that he had in connection with it. At any
rate, that is before us, to be considered. In all good faith, I asked
if there were anything in his mannerism that you could give us as a
fact, what he did — his tone, and a lot of things, I mean, which might
tend to make a man conclude that he was arrogant.
I mean, aside from tlie answers that he gave, the factual matters
with the statements and the answers, themselves — I wonder if there
was anything in his physical appearance or his physical action at the
time, that you used as a basis for concluding that he was arrogant.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that his whole
attitude when you talk with him, in connection with his refusal to
answer questions and his evasiveness, you would get the picture, but
you cannot get it from the printed record; and all I can say is, the
full attitude was one of complete arrogance, complete contempt of
the committee.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I have completed my direct exam-
ination. I urge and invite the committee members to cross-examine
Senator McCarthy vigorously on this subject. I believe that a vigor-
ous cross-examination is the greatest instrument that has ever been
devised for eliciting the truth; and I turn him over to you, sir, as
your witness.
The Chairman. I think we may expect that members of the com-
mittee will be given an opportunity to cross-examine with some vigor.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 205
However, I think we will place some limitations, not on tlie degree
of vigor which they may use. I do not think I have to pass on that.
But I think, possibly before they start — I assume you meant that the
connnittee counsel could question, as well.
Mr. Williams. Oh, surely.
The Chairman. So probably, unless members of the committee
want to talk now, or proceed to the examination — and I will ask them
if they do.
Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions, now, but
before we leave this record here, do I correctly understand that this
testimon}' now of General Zwicker, and the examination by Senator
McCarthy, is all in the record ? If it is not, I think it should be.
Mr. Williams. I think so, too. Senator.
Senator Stennis. Because that is the only way we have of getting
the picture all together. Is it already in, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. A good deal of it is in the record. A good deal
of what seemed to be pertinent material at the time was placed in the
record the otlier day, when counsel was reading from this record.
Senator Stennis. As I recall, the attorneys for the committee
placed in the record Senator McCarthy's report. I feel that it all
ought to go in the record.
The Chairman. You mean this entire printed hearing?
Senator Stennis. Well, there is a viewpoint that is missed unless
it is in there.
The Chairman. Some of it may be considered to be irrelevant and
immaterial, if we eliminate that.
Mr. Williams. It is my suggestion that we offer the Peress testi-
mony in open session, and the Zwicker testimony in executive session
in toto, and I think we shall then have the whole picture. Mr. de Furia
indicates there is no objection.
The Chairman. I think that offer will be accepted. We have most
of it now.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chaieman. To be sure we have got it all, we will accept that
offer and will print all the Peress testimony, in the open hearing, and
the Zwicker testimony in the executive hearing.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stennis. Let all the Zwicker testimony appear in one
place, in the present record, as it does in this printed record before
us. That is the only way to get it into the record.
The Chairman. That is just what we will do, whenever it appears.
It should appear in the record, about now, on that point.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. So the testimony of those two men that I refer to
will be received in evidence.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. As a part of the record.
Senator Stennis. Certainly. I thank you.
The Chairman. So that will cover that. Thank you for the sug-
gestion.
The testimony of Major Peress and of General Zwicker is as follows :
206 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
TESTIMONY OF MAJ. IRVING PEEESS, AEMY DENTAL CORPS,
CAMP KILMER, N. J., ACCOMPANIED BY STANLEY FAULKNER,
ATTORNEY
The Chairman. Major, would you raise your right hand and be
sworn, please.
In the matter now in hearing, do you solemnly swear that the tes-
timony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Major Peress. I do.
The Chairman. Will counsel identify himself for the record?
Mr. Faulkner. Stanley Faulkner, 9 East 40th Street, New York
City.
The Chairman. And would you give your telephone number in case
the staff has to get in touch with you ?
Mr. Faulkner. Lexington 2-7780.
Mr. CoHN. Could we get your full name ?
Major Peress. Irving, I-r-v-i-n-g Peress, P-e-r-e-s-s.
Mr. CoHN. Where do you reside ?
Major Peress. 6139 79th Street, Middle Village, N. Y.
Mr. CoHN. Now, what is your current rank in the Army?
Major Peress. Major.
Mr. CoHN. For how long a period of time have you held that rank ?
Major Peress. Almost 3 months.
Mr. CoHN. And when did you enter the Army?
Major Peress. On active duty, you mean?
The Chairman. Let me interrupt. Do I understand you were pro-
moted 3 months ago ?
Major Peress. That is right. On November 2, 1953.
The Chairman. When did you go on active duty?
Major Peress. January 1, 1952.
The Chairman. A little over 2 years ago ?
Major Peress. No, I am sorry, January 1, 1953.
Mr. CoHN. Now, what were the circumstances of your going on
active duty. Did you apply or were you called ?
By the way, any time you want to you can consult with counsel. He
can talk to you or nudge you and you can do likewise. I don't know if
you have been before tlie committee before.
(Witness consults with counsel.)
Major Peress. I registered under the doctor draft law; I think it
was the 1950 law. I was called up in July of 1952 to take a physical
examination, which I passed, and I was tendered a commission in
approximately October 1952 as captain. I got orders to go on active
duty January 1, 1953.
Mr. CoHN. Did you apply for a commission as captain ?
Major Peress. Yes, the procedure was the draft board notified you
of your impending induction and between the enlistment on my part —
the coinciding of dates coining in 2 weeks — I was informed the enlist-
ment was not recognized so that I went under the normal channels of
draft induction.
Mr. CoHN. Then you applied for a commission, and after you filled
out certain application forms, that commission was tendered as
captain. Is that right?
Major Peress. Yes.
HEARENGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 207
Mr. CoHN. And you accepted the commission.
Major Peress. I did.
Mr. CoHN. Where did you enter on duty ?
Major Peress. Fort Sam Houston, Tex.
Mr. CoHN. For how long a period were you down there ?
Major Peress. I left home January 1 and left there February 7.
Mr. CoHN. "W^iere did you go from Fort Sam Houston ?
The Chairman. Let me interrupt. Apparently, Major, the situa-
tion was — see if I understand you correctly. Correct me if I am
wrong. You did register for the doctors' draft.
Major Peress. Every physician and dentist had to register under
the 1951 law.
The Chairman. Then there came a time when the draft board noti-
fied you you had been called up. You were put in a certain priority
depending on whether the Goverment had helped finance your edu-
cation or depending on the time you served in the last war.
Major Peress. Yes.
The Chairman. After you were classified in one of those priorities,
you attempted to enlist in the Army. They told you due to the prox-
imit}^ of enlistment to the time of your classification, they hadn't
recognized your enlistment and you were about to be inducted ; then
you applied for a commission — they allow you sufficient time to apply
for a commission — a commission of captain was tendered to you and
you accepted it. Is that right ?
Major Peress. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. In effect you attempted to volunteer for the service.
Is that correct.
Major Peress. In effect, yes, sir.
The Chairman. How did you serve in the last war ?
Major Peress. I had a commission tendered to me and at the last
moment they discovered I had a physical defect which they would not
waive and they would not accept me.
The Chairman. But your physical defect was waived on this oc-
casion ?
Major Peress. That is right.
The Chairman. Had the Government financed, in any way, your
education ?
Major Peress. No.
Mr. CoHN. From Fort Sam Houston, where did you go after that?
Major Peress. I had orders to go^to Yokohama, Japan. When I
got to the port of embarkation at Fort Lewis, Wash., I had an emer-
gency leave to come back home.
The Chairman. Was it a medical question?
Major Peress. Yes, sir, a medical question.
I came home and had further communication with the Department
of Defense, the Pentagon, I received new orders to report to Kilmer.
Mr. CoHN. Wliose illness was it ?
Major Peress. My wife and daughter.
Mr. CoHN. Now, you said something about the Department of De-
fense. Who did you see in the Department of Defense ?
Major Peress. Well, I guess I went through the Adjutant General's
Office in the Pentagon.
Mr. CoHN. You wrote to the proper authorities and requested a
change of assignment?
208 HEARINGS OX SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Major Peress. They did.
Mr. CoHN. Wliere did they station you ?
Major Peress. Camp Kilmer, N. J.
Mr. ConN. How far is that from New York ?
Major Peress. Thirty miles.
The Chairman. See if I have this picture correctly in mind. You
were assigned to Yokohama ; you got as far as the port of embarkation
and received emergency leave because of illness on the part of your
wife and daughter.
Major Peress. That is right.
The Chairman. When you arrived home you applied for a transfer
to some other station in the United States ?
Major Peress. I applied for what is called compassionate
reassignment.
The Chairman. Who did you correspond with on this subject?
Major Peress. The Adjutant General. I don't know who handled
it in the office — in the Office of the Adjutant General.
The Chairman. Did you have correspondence other than through
official channels?
(Witness consulted with counsel.)
Major Peress. Before I answer that question, Mr. Senator, I would
like to state, at this time I am on active duty with the Army and under
the sole jurisdiction of the Army and the President, who is the Com-
mander and Chief of the Armed Forces, and do not feel that I come
under the jurisdiction of this committee.
The Chairman. Did you have any correspondence with anyone with
regard to the change of your orders other than through official
channels ?
Major Peress. In regard to the change of being assigned to Yoko-
hama to being assigned to the United States, did I have correspond-
ence— you mean did I write to friends ?
The Chairman. You understand the question. Did you have cor-
respondence other than through official channels ?
Major Peress. The answer is "No."
The Chairman. In other words, no Congressman, no Senator, no
one to your knowledge intervened in your behalf to promote your
change of orders?
Major Peress. Well, I wrote to nobody, but my wife asked my Con-
gressman about the advice of how to proceed. There was no official
correspondence, no intervention. He merely suggested to us the Red
Cross as a means of coming back from Fort Lewis, Wash., to New
Jersey.
The Chairman, Who was your Congressman?
Major Peress. I believe his name was Holtzman.
The Chairman. And he is from where ?
Major Peress. Queens, where I live.
The Chairman. You say you had correspondence with him when
you were on your way to Yokohama ?
Major Peress. I had no correspondence with him.
The Chairman. Who did have correspondence with him ?
Major Peress. Well, I don't remember exactly but my wife either
called him or wrote to him because he lives in the neighborhood and
got a telegram back from him to the effect that I get in touch with the
Red Cross in order to secure time that my apj^eal be considered.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 209
As it was, because of the element of time, nothing could be done and
I would have had to go to the Far East and take it up in the Far
East. He suggested the Red Cross as an instrument of delaying the
transfer overseas.
The Chairman. Do you have copies of the correspondence and the
application you made at that time? Do you have copies of corres-
pondence with your Congressman, the Red Cross, Department of
Army — any correspondence in connection with the delay or change of
orders ?
Major Peress. I should say
The Chairman. Do you or do you not have the correspondence ?
Major Peress. Well, I made copies but I am not real sure I have
them.
The Chairman. You don't have any along with you ?
Major Peress. Let's see.
(Witness examines record.)
The Chairman. Any documents having to do with the change of
orders ?
Major Peress. I do not have them with me.
The Chairman. Did anyone in the Army ever ask you whether
you were a member of the Communist Party or a Communist Party
organizer ?
Major Peress. I decline to answer that question under the protec-
tion of the fifth amendment on the ground it might tend to incriminate
me.
The Chairman. You decline to answer whether or not they asked
you ? Are you a member of the Communist Party today ?
Major Peress. I again decline, claiming the privilege for the reason
previously stated.
The Chairman. Were you a member of the Communist Party at
the time you were inducted ?
Major Peress. I again claim the privilege.
The Chairman. Did any Communists intervene to have your orders
changed so you would not have to leave the country ?
Major Peress. I again claim the privilege.
The Chairman. You are entitled to the privilege.
Is your wife a member of the Communist party ?
Major Peress. I again claim the privilege.
Mr. CoHN. Your wife's name is Elaine, is that correct ?
Major Peress. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. How many children do you have?
Major Peress. Two.
The Chairman. How old are they ?
Major Peress. Six and a half and eight and a half.
The Chairman, And you said your orders were changed because
of illness. What was the illness ?
Major Peress. It is a personal matter I'd rather not discuss. The
Army has official information on it.
The Chairman. If it is an illness which is in any way embarrassing,
we would not require you to discuss it. Otherwise, we will have to
ask you about it.
I am curious to know how Communists can get their orders changed
so easily. The average man would be sent to Yokohama. You can
suddenly have your orders changed and kept in this country. I am
210 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
curious to know whether the ilhiess was real or imaginary. I am
curious to know if that was the real factor; if you were telling the
truth, or you were lying. You told the Army your wife and daugh-
ter were sick. If the sickness would be embarrassing to discuss it,
we will not ask about it ; otherwise I want to know about it.
Major Peress. The Red Cross made an investigation of the nature
of the illness and the validity of the reason of the change and these are
on file in the Army records.
The Chairman. What were the reasons? If the Red Cross made
an investigation, there is nothing confidential. Wliat were the
reasons ?
Major Peress. I would still rather not discuss it. Senator, because it
is personal, and I feel it invades the privacy of the medical profession
and is not pertinent.
The Chairman. Mister, I don't know whether the reason is suf-
ficient. Every day in my office I have young men writing in saying
tlieir wives are sick, very ill, asking to have their orders changed so
they will not have to go overseas. They are sent overseas. I just
wonder how you Communists have such tremendous luck clay after
day when you come before us. There is no consideration too great.
I want to find out how you stopped at the port of embarkation ; who
stopped you when he knew you were a Communist ; whether another
Communist did it for you, and I am going to order you to tell us what
the alleged illness was.
Major Peress. The reason is simply that my wife and daughter
were undergoing psychiatric treatment, and I am not a psychiatrist
and couldn't detail the reasons. He felt it would be desirable for the
health of the family to have me stay.
I'he Chairman. In other words, there was no physical illness except
that they were under the care of a psychiatrist because of some emo-
tional disturbance. Is that correct?
Major Peress. I don't know if you feel there is a difference between
physical and mental illness — if there is a different level of the validity
of illnesses. As I said, they were under psychiatric treatment.
The Chairman. How old was your daughter when she was under
this treatment?
Major Peress. She was at the time just under 6.
Mr. CoHN. Now, Major, you are a graduate of the leadei-ship train-
ing course of the Inwood Victory Club of the Communist Party, are
you not?
Major Peress. I decline to answer that question under the fifth
amendment.
Mr. CoHN. Did you attend courses in leadership of the Inwood Vic-
tory Club of the Communist Party at 139 Dyckman Street?
Major Peress. I claim the privilege.
The Chairman. Let me ask you this. When you say you claim th(i
privilege, you are claiming it under that part of the fifth amendment
which provides that you need not give testimony that you feel might
tend to incriminate you. Is that correct?
Major Peress. That is correct.
The Chairman. You understand that you can only claim that privi-
lege if you feel a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you ; you
cannot claim the privilege if you feel perjury would incriminate you.
Do you understand ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 211
Major Peress. I understand your question.
The Chairman. Is your position that you feel a truthful answer
to this question might tend to incriminate you ?
Major Peress. That is correct. Since the Constitution, I believe,
states I may believe my answer may tend to incriminate and not that
it will incriminate me, I am exercising the right under the fifth
amendment, which so stated.
The Chairman. I asked you a simple question, before I can deter-
mine whether you are entitled to the fifth amendment privilege. The
question is : Do you feel a truthful answer might tend to incriminate
you ? If you do, you are entitled to refuse. If you do not, then you
must answer.
Major Peress. Yes, I do feel a a truthful answer might tend to
incriminate me.
The Chairman. And that is what you mean is your answer to all
these questions when yon say
Major Peress. That is correct.
Mr. CoHN. At the leadership training course of the Inwood Victory
Club, were you taught the doctrine of forcible overthrow of the
United States Government?
Major Peress. I again claim the privilege.
Mr. CoHN. Did you yourself deliver talks at Communist discussion
groups at which you discussed the doctrine of Marxism and Leninism
urging the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force
and violence?
Major Peress. I again claim the privilege.
Mr. CoHN. When you went down to Camp Kilmer, specifically,
when at Camp Kilmer, did you attempt to recruit any of the military
personnel there into the Communist Party ?
Major Peress. I again claim the privilege for the same reason.
Mr, CoHN. While stationed at Camp Kilmer did you have Comnum-
ist Party meetings at your home, attended by one or more military
personnel from Camp Kilmer ?
Major Peress. I again claim the privilesre.
Mr. CoHN. Now, you attended City College from 1933 to 1936. I3
that right?
Major Peress. Yes, sir.
Mr. CoHN, And then you went to NYU Dental School from 193G
through 1940?
Major Peress. That is right.
Mr. CoHN. While you were at Camp Kilmer, were you taking orders
from any functionaries of the Communist Party ?
Major Peress. I again claim the privilege.
Mr. CoHN. In addition to your work in the Dental Corps, did you
have any other assignment, extra duty, or anything else in connection
with Army service? Were you ever on any board or special detail?
Major Peress. Repeat the beginning of that question.
Mr. CoHN. In addition to your regular dental duty, did you ever
carry out any other assignment, extra duty, or anything else in connec-
tion with Army service on a part-time basis ?
Major Peress. I carried no assignment, but in the preliminary train-
ing at Fort Sam Houston it was not all dental work. I had to learn
hoAv to conduct medical battalions in the field and take over first-aid
duties.
212 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. CoHN. Did you ever sit on a board ?
Major Peress. I took regular duty when my turn came around, that
is, dental duty.
Mr. CoHN. You had no duty other than dental duty ?
Major Peress. That is right.
Mr. CoHN. While at Camp Kilmer, did you, in fact, recruit military
personnel into the Communist Party ?
Major Peress. I again claim the privilege.
The Chairman". Were you promoted after the Army had you in
and questioned you about your background ?
Major Peress. You mean in service?
The Chairman. I mean were you before the security officer, a board,
or your commanding officer and questioned about your background?
Major Peress. I was never before any board in the Army for ques-
tioning.
The Chairman. You say you were never before a board of inquiry
or questioned about your background by any officer of the Army ?
Major Peress. If this is what you mean, I was never before any
board of inquiry of one or more members.
Mr. CoHN. In August of 1953, that is August of this last summer,
were you asked any questions or given interrogatories concerning Com-
munist Party affiliations ?
Major Peress. Would you repeat whether you are asking about
orally or in writing?
Mr. CoHN. We will let it cover both. My question was, Were you
asked written or oral questions concerning Communist Party affilia-
tions?
Major Peress. Was I asked these questions ?
Mr. CoHN. In August of 1953 you were given interrogatories by the
Army which you refused to answer. Isn't that a fact ?
Major Peress. I answered them.
Mr. CoHN. You answered all of them ?
Major Peress. Yes.
Mr. CoHN. Did you ever refuse to answer interrogatories put to you
by the Army ?
Major Peress. What is the meaning of refuse? I was given an in-
terrogatory and I returned it.
Mr. CoHN. Did you answer every question on the interrogatory?
Major Peress. Yes ; or it would not have been accepted.
Mr. CoHN. I am talking about August 1953.
Major Peress. It would not have been accepted if I had not an-
swered all the questions.
Mr. CoHN. Did you give information in response to every question?
(Witness consults with counsel.)
Mr. CoHN. You were given an interrogatory by the Army in Aug-
ust 1953. You declined to answer certain of the questions on the basis
of the fifth amendment. That is a matter of public record, isn't it?
Major Peress. That is right.
Mr. CoHN. How many questions did you decline to answer on the
basis of the fifth amendment ?
Major Peress. (No answer.)
Mr. CoHN. Is this a fair statement? Let me see if I can save time.
You refused to answer, under the fifth amendment, any questions deal-
ing with Communist affiliations or associations.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 213
Major Peress. If I may see the interrogatory, I can answer that
question.
The Chairman. Answer the question.
Major Peress. Well, do you have a record on it ?
The Chairman. Answer the question.
Major Peress. I claim the privilege.
The Chairman. You are ordered to answer.
Major Peress. I have no privilege on this question?
The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question. You can
consult with counsel if you like. The question is. On this applica-
tion, did you refuse to answer questions relating to Communist Party
affiliations?
Major Peress. If you will repeat the specific questions on the in-
terrogatory to me
The Chairman. You are ordered to answer counsel's question.
Major Peress. I claim the privilege on the questions that were pre-
sented to me on the interrogatory.
The Chairman. Have the record show that the witness was ordered
to answer counsel's question. In view of the fact that it is a matter
of public record, there is no privilege. After the chairman ordered
him to answer, the witness persisted in refusing to answer.
Mr. Faulkner. He did answer the question, Mr. Senator.
Major Peress. I answered the questions on the interrogatory they
refer to by claiming the fifth amendment.
The Chairman. With reference to those questions on the interroga-
tory, you answered them to the Army by claiming the fifth amend-
ment?
Major Peress. That is right.
The Chairman. In what connection was the interrogatory filled
out? Was it in connection with a loyalty investigation or a promo-
tional investigation?
Major Peress. There was no discussion by the colonel who gave
them to me.
Mr. CoHN. Who was that?
Major Peress. He was in the G-2 office. I don't recall his name. It
was a short name. Smith or something like that. It might have been
Smith. ^
Mr. CoHN. Did you hear anything further from this colonel after
you filled out the interrogatory ?
Major Peress. They gave them to me 1 day and I filled them out
and gave them back the next day.
The Chairman. You heard nothing from him after that — after
you refused to answer ?
Major Peress. After I resubmitted the interrogatory with the ques-
tions answered in writing, I never heard from him again.
The Chairman. After you refused to answer questions concerning
Communist Party affiliations, claiming the fifth amendment, in this
questionnaire, you heard nothing more about the matter from any
Army officials and you were subsequently promoted; is that correct?
Major Peress. That is correct.
The Chairman. Did any Communists aid you in getting this promo-
tion?
Major Peress. I again claim the privilege, but I will tell you how the
promotion was effected if you want to know.
214 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The Chairman. Do you know any Communist in the military
today ?
Major Peress. I again claim the privilege.
The Chaikman. How much of your salary, if any, do you contribute
to the Communist Party ?
Major Peress. I again claim the privilege for the same reason.
The Chairman. Did you attend a Communist Party meeting within
the last week ?
Major Peress. I again claim the privilege.
The Chairman. Have you attempted to recruit soldiers into the
Communist Party in the last week?
Major Peress. I again claim the privilege.
The Chairman. Is there a Communist cell at Camp Kilmer of which
you are a member ?
Major Peress. I again claim the privilege.
The Chairman. Did you not organize a Communist cell at Camp
Kilmer?
Major Peress. I again claim the privilege.
The Chairman. Do you think Communists should be commissioned
in our military?
Major Peress. I again claim the privilege.
The Chairman. You are not entitled to any privilege on that ques-
tion. You are ordered to answer.
Major Peress. Do 1 think Communists should be commissioned in
the Array, I haven't thought about it. I don't feel one way or the
other.
The Chairman. Do you think if the Army finds out you are an or-
ganizer for the Communist Party, organizing a cell, soliciting soldiers
in the party, they should oust you from the Army or leave you in or
do you have any opinion on that?
Major Peress. I feel I haven't any opinion ; that that is a policy for
the Army to say.
Mr. Cohn. 1 meant to ask this. Is the psychiatric treatment of your
wife and daughter continuing up to the present time?
Major Peress. Yes.
Mr. Cohn. Continuing steadily without interruption?
]\fajor Peress. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cohn. What is the name of the doctor who gives that psychi-
atric treatment ? Do you recall that ?
Major Peress. I am not sure. I know it is connected with NYU.
There is a clinic at NYU. I don't know if it is affiliated with NYU.
The Chairman. You don't know the name of the doctor who has
been treating your wife a year or two.
Major Peress. There has been more than one physician involved.
The Chairman. What was the name of the first one you knew ?
Major Peress. I am not sure.
The Chairman. You are not sure. You are not sure of the name
of any doctor or psychiatrist who treated your wife for an ailment
so serious ?
Major Peress. Dr. Schecter was involved. I think he is treating
my daughter, and Dr. Gerwin, who, I think, is treating my wife, or
the other way around. One is treating my wife and the other my
daughter.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 215
The Chairman. Now, when was the last treatment for either your
wife or daughter ?
Major Peress. Tuesday and Friday they go.
The Chairman. And what doctor was treating your wife and
daughter at the time you received this change of orders?
Major Peress. It is a German name. I don't recall.
The Chairman. Wliere is his office ?
Major Peress. It is in the midwest Manhattan section, and I be-
lieve in the eighties.
The Chairman. How long before the application for change of
orders was your wife and daughter being treated for this psychiatric
ailment ?
Major Peress. I couldn't say for sure. My wife, I believe, had been
seeing this doctor for a year or 2 years.
The Chairman. How long had your daughter been taking treat-
ments ?
Major Peress. It may have been at the age of 4 or 3i^ or 41/2-
The Chairman. You say you refuse to tell us whether or not a
Communist helped to get this change of orders ?
Major Peress. Under the privilege.
The Chairman. You will be ordered to appear in Washington, in
room 357, Senate Office Building, on the 16th of February.
(The chief counsel consults with the chairman.)
We will change that place and date to the 18th of February in New
York City, in this courthouse. Now, I don't know what room here it
will be. Counsel will notify your lawyer what room, and make that
10 : 30 in the morning, unless your counsel is notified of a different time.
Mr. Faulkner. Will that be executive session ?
The Chairman. That will be public session.
Mr. Faulkner. I think the record should show the witness appeared
here voluntarily without subpena. Will he be subpenaed ?
The Chairman. He is ordered now.
Mr. Cohn. You understand if a man is notified to appear before a
congressional committee and given sufficient time, regardless of
whether he is notified by telephone, telegram, or formal subpena, that
is a subpena. Now, if you prefer — sometimes counsel prefers subpena.
Mr. Faulkner. That is what I am coming to. The witness, being
in the Armed Forces, I think a subpena
Mr. CoHN. We will be glad to do tliat.
The Chairman. Now, Counsel, the committee would like to look at
the correspondence of the witness relating to military service and
various assignments he had. I assume he has that with him.
Mr. CoiiN. We just want to look at it. We will return it. We will
have a copy made if we need it.
Mr. Faulkner. This has been turned over to me as counsel, and as
his counsel I am not prepared to turn it over. It is confidential.
Mr. CoHN. He can't make it a confidential privilege merely because
he turns it over to you. If it is under his control and in his possession,
he has to produce it. This is clearly under his control.
Mr. Faulkner. On the other hand, I don't see why he should have
any objection to that. Everything we have here you have a copy of in
the files. These are just copies of letters going back to 1940, if you are
interested in 1940.
216 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. CoHN. All we will do is have an investigator look through it.
Why don't you stay there with them to see that nothing is removed.
If anything is of sufficient importance, arrangements will be made with
you to have it photostated, so you will be sure to have it back.
Major Peress. These forms I filled out when I entered service, that
I believe is confidential between me and the Army.
The Chairman. There is nothing confidential between a member
of the Communist Party and the Army when the committee is
investigating.
Major Peress. I just made copies of them.
The Chairman. Anything in the hands of the Communist Party is
no longer confidential, because being in the Communist Party, if tney
tell you to turn things over to the Communist Party, you know you are
bound to do it, so we don't give the Communist Party any special
privilege before this committee. The witness is ordered to turn the
papers over to counsel.
In case any questions arise, have the record show that the major has
the material in his hands and will turn it over to his lawyer and he will
produce it.
You haven't been asked to resign, have you?
Major Peress. Yes, I have.
The Chairman. Who asked you ?
Major Peress. Colonel Moore. I am not sure of that name. It
might be some other name.
The Chairman. Did you refuse to resign ?
Major Peress. No, I accepted the request. I have a day of termina-
tion.
The Chairman. Wliat date are you due to resign ?
Major Peress. It is no later than the 31st of March, but I can move
it up if I so desire.
The Chairman. You are being given an honorable discharge?
Major Peress. I haven't been given — —
The Chairman. So far as you know, you are being allowed to resign
with no reflection on your record ?
Major Peress. There was no discussion of that.
The Chairman. Why were you asked to resign ?
Major Peress. They wouldn't tell me the reason.
The Chairman. Did you ever refuse to resign ?
Major Peress. No, I was never requested to before.
The Chairman. When were you requested to resign?
Major Peress. A week ago today.
The Chairman. In other words, you were asked to resign after you
were ordered to appear before this committee ?
Major Peress. I was ordered to come before this committee yester-
day morning.
Mr. CoHN. That was the first time you had ever been asked to
resign ?
Major Peress. The first time was a week ago this morning at 11
o'clock.
The Chairman. O. K., you may step down.
(l^^iereupon, the hearing adjourned at 11 : 30 a. m.)
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 217
AFTERNOON SESSION
The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand? In this matter
now in hearing before this committee, do you solemnly swear to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Peress. I do.
TESTIMONY OF IRVING PEKESS (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL,
STANLEY FAULKNER, NEW YORK CITY)
The Chairman. You said you were not a major. When did you
last have the rank of major?
Mr. Peress. I would like, if possible, to make a statement before
testifying before the committee. I have a brief statement I would
like to make. I will answer the question. I stopped being a major
February 2, 1954.
The Chairman. February 2, 1954?
Mr. Peress. May I read a statement before the committee?
The Chairman. If you have a statement your attorney is aware of
the rules of the committee. The statement must be submitted 24 hours
in advance. In other words, if you will hand the statement up, we
will glance at it and see whether you can read it. If it is pertinent to
the hearing, you will be allowed to read it.
(Document handed to chairman.)
The Chairman. You may read it. Is this an extra copy ?
Mr. Peress. Yes.
I have been subpenaed to appear before this committee presumably
to answer certain questions concerning my political beliefs, both past
and present. So that there may be no mistake about my position in
this regard, I shall decline to answer any such questions under the
protection of the fifth amendment to our Constitution.
The Chairman. May I interrupt you there? You are not being
subpenaed to answer in regard to your political beliefs. You are here
to answer in regard to the part you played while an officer in the
United States Army in the conspiracy designed to destroy this Nation.
That is what you are being called about. You are not being asked
about any of your political beliefs. You will not be asked about any
political beliefs.
You may proceed.
Mr. Peress. From my earliest schooling I have been taught that the
United States Constitution is the highest law of our land and that one
of the strongest provisions is the protection afforded to all persons of
the privilege under the fifth amendment. My education has also
taught me that anyone, even a United States Senator, who would deny
this constitutional protection to any individual or who under his cloak
of his immunity would draw inferences therefrom, and publicly an-
nounce such inferences, is subversive. I use that word advisedly. By
subversive I mean anyone who would undermine the strength of the
Constitution and thereby weaken our democratic form of government.
"When I appeared before you, Senator McCarthy, on January 30, 1954,
at an executive session of your committee, you, acting as a committee
of one, made certain charges concerning my promotion in rank and
pending honorable discharge. Just to make the record clear, I was
promoted and honorably discharged under Public Law 84 of the 83d
218 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Congress, wliicli incidentally was passed when you, Senator McCarthy,
were a Member of the Senate. In recognition of my honest and faith-
ful service to my coimtry I was awarded an honorable discharge on
February 2, 1954. In the period of my service, no one either within
or witliout found it necessary to question my loyalty.
Another bit of schooling which I had as a Jew^ was a study of the
Old Testament, which I highly recommend to you, Senator, and your
counsel, and i:)articularly Book 7 of the Psalms, which reads :
His mischief shall return upon his own head and his violence shall come down
upon his own pate.
The Chairman. Major, you just heard a policewoman for the city
of New York testify that you attended a Communist leadership school.
Is that testimony on her part true or false?
Mr. Peress. I must decline to answer that question. Senator, under
the protection of the fifth amendment on tlie ground that it might tend
to incriminate me. I would also like to say. Senator, that I am not a
major. The title is "Dr. Peress," not "Major Peress."
Tlie Chairman. Let me make this very clear: You have been ac-
cused. Major, of the most dishonest, the worst conduct that anyone in
the Army can be guilty of. You have been accused under oath of
being a member of a conspiracy designed to destroy this Nation by
force and violence. You are here this morning, you are given an op-
portunity under oath, to tell us whether or not those charges are true
or false. If you are a part of this treasonous conspiracy, if you have
attended leadership schools of the Communist conspiracy, obviously
3'ou will take the protection of the fifth amendment. If you are inno-
cent, you will tell us that. Now, let me ask you this question: Is it
true that as of this moment and during all the time that you were an
officer in the United States Army, you were an active member of the
Communist conspiracy ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
The Chairman. At the time you received your commission in the
Army, were you a section organizer for the Communist conspiracy?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. I claim the privilege.
The Chairman. What privilege?
Mr. Peress. The privilege to decline to answer under the fifth
amendment.
The Chairman. On the ground of self-incrimination?
Mr. Peress, On the ground that it might tend to incriminate me.
The Chairman. At the time you were promoted from captain to
major, were you then an active, knowing member of the Communist
conspiracy?
Mr. Peress. I claim the privilege.
The Chairman. You will have to tell us each time under what
privilege.
Mr. Peress. I must decline to answer that question under the pro-
tection of the fifth amendment on the ground that it might tend to
incriminate me.
The Chairman. All right.
Did you hold Conmiunist meetings in your home while you were
an officer in the United States Army ?
Mr. Peress. I claim the first amendment on the gi"Ound that it
might tend to incriminate me.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 219
The Chairman. Who signed your honorable discharge?
Mr. Peress. John J. McManus, major, Infantry.
The Chairman. Is that your discharge?
Mr. Peress. That is a photostat of it.
The Chairman. Will you hand it up?
(Document handed to the chairman.)
The Chairman. Where is John J. McManus located ?
Mr. Peress. I have no idea.
The Chairman. Who notified you that you would receive an honor-
able discharge?
Mr. Peress. I don't believe I was officially notified. It was just
tendered to me when I left.
The Chairman. It was handed to you ?
Mr. Peress. Yes ; as part of my records.
The Chairman. Let's have the record show that this is signed
February 2, 1954. This was handed to you on what date ?
Mr. Peress. February 2, 1954.
The Chairman. Let us have the record show that this was signed
and handed to this fifth amendment Communist, Major Peress, after I
had written the Secretary of the Army suggesting that he be court-
martialed, suggesting that everyone having anything to do with his
promotion, with his change of orders, be court-martialed. I did that
feeling that this would be one way to notify all the officers in the
Army and all the enlisted men, that there has been a new day in the
Army, that the 20 years of treason have ended, and that no officer in
the Army can protect traitors, can protect Communists. I want the
record to show this was given to you after that letter had been made
public, before the Secretary of the Army, Kobert Stevens, returned
to the United States. I ask, Mr. Adams, where is John J. McManus
now?
Mr. John Adams (legal counsel to Department of the Army, Wash-
ington, D. C). I don't know, Mr. Chairman. I presume he is an
officer in headquarters. First Army.
The Chairman. AVill we have to subpena him, or will he be pro-
duced ?
Mr. Adams. He will be produced.
The Chairman. Good. We will want him in executive session this
afternoon, unless he feels that he needs additional time to get a lawyer
to represent him. If he wants additional time, we will give him any
time that is within reason that he wants. If he doesn't need time to
get a lawyer, I want him here this afternoon at 2 : 30 o'clock, in ex-
ecutive session.
Have you met John J. McManus ?
Mr. Peress. Not to my knowledge.
The Chairman. Who handed you this honorable discharge ?
^ Mr. Peress. I am not sure. I think it was a sergeant at the separa-
tion center. I don't know — or it could have been a warrant officer.
The Chairman. Who is the highest ranking officer with whom you
spoke after your appearance before the committee?
Mr. Peress. General Zwicker.
The Chairman. General Zwicker? "WHiat conversation did you
have with General Zwicker?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. Would you repeat that question, please ?
52461—54 15
220 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The Chairman. Will the reporter read the question ?
(The reporter read from his notes as requested.)
Mr. Peress. I don't recall the exact word-for-word conversation. I
requested of General Zwicker, after the hearing before you on Janu-
ary 30, when I saw him on February 1, that an inquiry be made into
these charges, that the newspapers had lambasted me with on Sunday
and Monday.
The Chairman. Did you tell him whether or not you were a Com-
munist?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question on the grounds ■
The Chairman. You wanted an inquiry made as to whether or not
you are a Communist ; is that correct ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. I wanted an inquiry of my conduct at Camp Kilmer.
The Chairman. Did you want the inquiry to include the question
of whether or not you had been holding Communist meetings at your
home, whether you had attended a Communist leadership school,
whether you had been recruiting military personnel there into the
Communist conspiracy? Did you want that included?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress, I could not tell them what to inquire about, but I asked
for an inquiry of the charges generally. I didn't specify as to which
charges to inquire into and which not to inquire into.
The Chairman. Did you tell them whether or not you would tell
them the truth if they made such an inquiry ?
Mr. Peress. I told General Zwicker, as you asked me, that I would
like an inquiry into the charges. I didn't tell him anything further.
The Chairman. They made an inquiry in August, did they not?
They sent you a questionnaire. They came to the best witness they
could find on this, assuming a Communist is a good witness. They
asked you practically all the questions this committee has asked you.
They asked you about all of your alleged activities in this Com-
munist conspiracy. That was in the inquiry. Did you tell them
the truth at that time?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question on the grounds that
it might tend to incriminate me.
The Chairman. Did you answer the questions as to whether or not
you were a member of the Communist conspiracy at that time?
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer.
The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer. It is a matter of
public record. You cannot decline.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. If it is a matter of public record, then I decline to
answer.
The Chairman. You decline to answer? You decline to answer
that?
Mr. Peress. You said it is a matter of public record.
The Chairman. Are you declining to answer?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. Could you repeat the question, please ?
The Chairman. The reporter will read it.
(The reporter read from his notes as requested.)
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 221
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question.
The Chairman. Have the record show, so that there can be no claim
of lack of knowledge at a future legal proceeding
Mr. Peress. On the fifth amendment.
The Chairman. That the witness was asked whether or not he
answered an Army questionnaire, as to whether or not he was part
of the Communist conspiracy. He declined, invoking the fifth amend-
ment. The Chair ordered him to answer on the grounds that this
is an improper invocation of the fifth amendment. Have the record
show he still declines.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. CoHN. Mr. Chairman, in executive session this witness, after
you overruled his privilege, did answer this question and stated, "I
answered the questions on the interrogatory by claiming the fifth
amendment."
In other words, when the Army submitted interrogatories to this
witness in August he refused to answer to the Army the pertinent
questions on Communist activity, and claimed the fifth amendment
in the Army inquiry at that time.
The Chairman. Thank you. Counsel, for calling that to my atten-
tion. Have the record show that an additional ground for the
Chair's ordering him to answer is the fact that he has already waived
the fifth amendment privilege as to this area of investigation. Have
the record show that he still refuses to answer.
In November 1953, were you promoted to major?
Mr. Peress. Was I promoted to major in November of 1953?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Peress. Yes.
The Chairman. Did anyone in the military, between August 1953
and January of 1954, ever ask you about any alleged Communist
Party activities on your part?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. Would you read that again, please?
(The reporter read from his notes as requested.)
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that.
The Chairman. You are ordered to answer.
Mr. Peress. I decline on the grounds of the fifth amendment, that
the answer might tend to incriminate me.
The Chairman. After our hearing here in New York, I believe it
was about 2 weeks ago, I read a statement which you allegedly made to
the press, to the effect that the charges that you were a Communist
were false. Now, I know that you fifth amendment Communists sing
a different tune under oath. You can lie as much as you like when
you are not under oath. Do you want to tell us now whether or not
that statement to the press was a lie, or whether you were telling the
truth when you told the press you were not a Communist?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question on the grounds of the
fifth amendment, that the answer might tend to incriminate me.
The Chairman. You are entitled to the privilege. When you at-
tended Communist leadership school, were you, among other things,
taught the necessity of the destruction of our Constitution, including
the fifth amendment upon which you rely today ?
222 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question under the protection
of the fifth amendment to the Constitution on the ground that tlie
answer might tend to incriminate me.
The Chairman. Is it a fact, Mister, that you have attended Com-
munist schools, leadership schools, you spoke there, your wife spoke
there, you advocated the destruction of the Constitution, you advo-
cated the destruction of the very amendment behind which you so
cowardly hide today ? Is that not a fact ?
Mr, Peress. I decline to answer that question on the grounds that
the answer might tend to incriminate me.
The Chairman. You are entitled to decline .
I may say that if you were an officer in the Russian Army instead
of the United States Army, if you were charged with treason against
Communist Russia, you would not have any fifth amendment there,.
Mister. And you life insurance would be rather high.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
The Chairman. Mr. Cohn?
Mr. Cohn. Mr. Peress, were you, Avhen commissioned in January of j
1958, section organizer for the Communist Party in Queens County ?
Mr. Peress. I must decline to answer that question under the pro-
tection of the fifth amendment on the ground that it might tend to
incriminate me.
The Chairman. While you were in the Army, did you contribute a^
percentage of your pay to the Communist Party?
JNIr. Peress. I decline again on the same privilege.
Mr. Cohn. Did you attempt to recruit any military personnel into]
the Communist Party ?
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer; the same privilege.
The Chairman. Wil you speak a little louder, sir?
Mr, Peress. I decline to answer the question under the protections!
of the fifth amendment on the grounds that it might tend to incrim-
inate me. Shall I go through that whole sentence every time, Senator f\
The Chairman. If that is what you are relying upon, you will stat
the grounds for your refusal.
Mr. Cohn. Did you ask officers stationed with you to attend Com-
munist Party meetings with you?
Mr, Peress. I must decline to answer that question under the fifth
amendment.
Mr. Cohn. Did you make a contribution, through the Daily Worker,
to the defense fund for the indicted Communist leaders?
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer under the fifth amendment.
Mr. Cohn. I will hand you a copy of page 12 of the Daily Worker
for November 22, 1949, and direct your attention to an article entitled
"Dollars Keep Coming for Defense Fund." It concludes with a state-
ment from the Daily Worker — "To all of you wonderful people,
thanks, thanks a million." There is a short list of names, and on that
list of names is the name Irv Peress, Queens. I would like for you to
examine that and tell the committee whether or not you are the Trv
Peress of Queens who received this commendation from the Daily
Worker for a contribution to the Communist defense fund.
The Chairman. While he is examining that, may I have the record
show that Senator Potter is represented here by his very able assistant,
Robert Jones. Senator Dirksen is rej^resented by his equally able
assistant, Mr. Rainville. I want Mr. Rainville and Mr. Jones to know
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 223
that as the representatives of the two Senators, you have the same
right to ask questions which any Senator would have.
Mr. CoHN. Are you the Irving Peress who received the thanks of
the Daily Worker for this contribution to the Communist defense
fund?
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer on the grounds that it might tend
to incriminate me.
The Chairman. Will you speak a little louder ?
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer.
Mr. CoHN. Of course, Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Faulkner. Did you read into the record that this is dated
The Chairman. We will not hear from counsel. If you want any-
thing read into the record, Mr. Peress can read it in. We will not
hear from counsel. I may say, Mr. Counsel, that this rule was not
made for you. It was made by the committee and made unanimously.
We give the witness the right, which he would not have in a court, a
right to confer with counsel, at any time he cares to. Counsel can
coach him in his answers, which is a right he would not have in court.
We do not allow counsel to take part in the proceedings. The reason
for that is obvious. And I am not speaking about you, Mr. Counsel,
but I speak about the general situation. If we allowed Communist
lawyers to take part in a filibuster proceedings, we could never hold
an intelligible hearing. So if there is anything you want to say, you
will have to abide by the same rule, which is not directed against you
personally, but you will have to talk through your client.
Mr. Faulkner, May I say something on that, what you just referred
to. Senator?
The Chairman. No, I said we will not hear from counsel.
Mr. Faulkner. Not on this point. That is all.
The Chairman. I will not hear from counsel on any point. I did
not make the rule. We have 4 Republicans, 3 Democrats. We unani-
mously passed that rule. I must abide by that rule the same as you
must. If you have something to say, you can tell your client and he
will say it.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. CoHN. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated when this article was first
referred to, I read the date into the record, which was November 22,
1949, and I ask that this entire article and the page from the Daily
Worker be received into evidence. I might state that an examina-
tion of the article indicates that Irv Peress, of Queens, had sent in a
dollar contribution to the defense fund for the Communist leaders to
accompany an entry which he had made into a contest being run by
the Daily Worker at that period of time. All of that is set forth on
this page. I ask that that be received into evidence.
The Chairman. It will be received.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 6" and may be
found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Mr. CoHN. I would call to your attention, Mr. Chairman, the fact
that this was obtained by the committee from a public record which,
of course, would have been available to the Army well before this man
was handed a commission. It was listed in the public files.
Now, referring to public files, Mr. Peress, did you take an ad in
the 15th anniversary edition of the Journal of the Abraham Lincoln
Brigade, which journal was sponsored by the Communist Party and
224 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
sent greetings to comrades on the celebration of the 15th anniversary
of the Abraham Lincohi Brigade ?
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer under the fifth amendment.
Mr. CoHN. Did you take an ad in the 10th anniversary, appearing
on the back page of the 10th anniversary edition of the Journal of the
Abraham Lincoln Brigade ?
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer under the fifth amendment.
Mr. CoHN. Have you been a subscriber to the Daily Worker for the
last 14 years ?
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer on the grounds that it might tend
to incriminate me.
Mr. CoHN. While you were a captain and a major in the Army, up
until this month, did you receive the Daily Worker ?
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer under the fifth amendment.
Mr. CoHN. Did you take the Daily Worker with you to your Army
assignment ?
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer under the fifth amendment.
Mr. CoHN. Did you show the Daily Worker to officers stationed
with you ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer under the fifth amendment.
The Chairman. Mr. Jones?
Mr. Jones. Mr. Peress, when you became an officer of the Army of
the United States, I assume that you took the regular oath of office?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr, Peress. Could I have the identification of who is question-
ing me ?
The Chairman. Will you try and speak up, sir ?
Mr. Peress. Could you identify the gentleman who is making the
inquiry ?
The Chairman. Mr. Robert Jones, administrative assistant to Sen-
ator Potter.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. Is he empowered by the Senate to question me ?
The Chairman. Answer the question.
Mr. Peress. The question is did I take the regular oath of office
when I was commissioned, first commissioned ?
Mr. Jones. Do you want to read the question back ?
(The reporter read from his notes as requested.)
Mr. Peress. Yes.
Mr. Jones. You did take the regular oath of office. In other words,
you did take the oath ?
Mr. Peress. I don't know what you mean by the regular oath.
Mr. Jones. The regular oath to uphold and defend the Constitution,
you took that oath, is that correct ?
Mr. Peress. That is right.
Mr. Jones. Did you ever refuse to take an oath ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. An oath to uphold the Constitution?
Mr. Jones. Exactly. Did you ever refuse to take it ?
Mr. Peress. No.
The Chairman. May I have the record straight. Did you ever re-
fuse to sign any oath or affidavit for the Army ?
(The witness conferred with his coimsel.)
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 225
Mr. Peress. None that I can recall.
Mr. Jones. Now, Mr. Peress, when you took the oath to uphold and
defend the Constitution, were you a member of the Communist Party
at that time ?
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question on the fifth amend-
ment, on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Jones. Would you while an officer of the Army of the United
States having taken the oath to defend the Constitution, oppose any
group that advocates the violent overthrow of the Government?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. I would defend and uphold the Constitution of the
United States, as taken in the oath.
Mr. Jones. That isn't answering the question. In other words,
you took the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United
States. Having taken that oath, would you then oppose any group
that advocates the overthrow of this Government ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. I would oppose any group that would seek to overthrow
the
Mr. Jones. In other words, you would oppose the Communist Party ?
Mr. Peress. You are answering for me? I would oppose, as my
oath states, any group that would seek to overthrow the United States
Government by force and violence and unconstitutional means.
Mr. Jones. In other words, then, you would oppose the Communist
Party?
Mr. Peress. Is that a question or a statement ?
Mr. Jones. I am asking you. Would you oppose the Communist
Party?
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question on the grounds that
it might tend to incriminate me.
The Chairman. Mr. Peress, at the time you attended Communist
leadership schools, were you not taught the necessity of the overthrow
of this Government by force and violence ?
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer under the fifth amendment.
The Chairman. The witness will be ordered to answer the question
on the grounds that he has waived the fifth amendment privilege by
his answer to the previous question.
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer on the grounds that it might tend
to incriminate me.
The Chairman. Just so that counsel and the witness will be fully
informed, the Chair takes the position that where you answer a ques-
tion, you have waived the fifth amendment privilege as to that entire
area of investigation. I have asked the Attorney General for an
opinion upon that matter. If the Attorney General sustains the view
of the committee, then we will heavily decimate the ranks of the
Communist conspiracy by way of contempt actions, and convictions,
against Communists like you, Major. If the Attorney General ren-
ders a favorable opinion, we intend to ask for a contempt citation
against every Communist who comes here and, by answering certain
questions, waives the fifth amendment, and then tries to invoke the
fifth amendment in the same area of investigation.
I tell you that so that you cannot plead ignorance at some future
legal proceeding.
I assume you still refuse to answer ?
226 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Peress. I do.
The Chairman. Is that correct?
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer under the fifth amendment.
The Ch.vjrman. I am going to hand you an exhibit — do you want to
mark this?
Mr. CoHN. Exhibit 7, Senator.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 7," and may
be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
The Chairman. I am going to hand you exhibit 7, and ask you if
this is the oath you signed, either at the time you got your commission
or about that time ?
(Document handed to the witness.)
Mr. Peress. I decline to identify this paper under the grounds that
it might tend to incriminate me.
The Chairman. The witness will be ordered to identify it.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. This is a blank paper, and I would have to decline to
ansAver on the identification of it.
The Chairman. Is that the type of oath you signed?
Mr. Peress. I couldn't recall. I would have to decline to answer.
I would have to see the papers I signed.
The Chairman. You are declining because you cannot recall?
Mr. Peress. No. I decline to answer on the grounds of the fifth
amendment, that it might
The Chairman. Would you read that oath? Read it out loud so
I can hear it.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. I decline to read the oath.
The Chairman. You will be ordered to read it to refresh your rec-
ollection so that you may be able to answer the question.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. I decline to acknowledge that I have seen this state-
ment before or signed such a paper, on the grounds that it might tend
to incriminate me.
Tlie Chairman. You will be ordered to read it.
Mr. Peress. I decline to read it.
The Chairman. Hand that back to me, please.
(Document handed to the chairman.)
Mr. Jones. Mr. Peress, you have already stated that you took the
oath to uphold the Constitution when you Avere connnissioned a cap-
tain; is that correct?
(The Avitness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. To my recollection, on getting my commission as a cap-
tain I Avas sent a number of forms, and I signed them and sent them
back. There Avas no official SAvearing-in ceremony.
Mr. Jones. You just said a fcAv minutes ago that you took the oath
to u])hold the Constitution. That is in the official record.
(The Avitness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. If the oath Avas in there, I took the oath.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Jones. Mr. Peress, Avill you please examine this statement?
The Chairman. Those Avill be made exhibits 8 and 9.
(The documents referred to Avere marked "Exhibits Nos. 8 and 9,"
and may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 227
(Documents handed to the witness.)
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
The Chairman. While the witness is examining that, may I ask a
question of Mr. Adams, the legal counsel for the Army ?
The information we have is that this man signed affidavits as to
nonmembership in the Communist Party and subversive groups. Is
it the position of the Army that by the honorable discharge which
he received after he was before the committee, that he had been re-
moved from the court-martial jurisdiction of the Army; or does the
Army take the position they have jurisdiction to court-martial this
fifth-amendment Communist for false swearing, of which he is ob-
viously guilty?
Mr, John Adams (legal counsel to the Department of the Army,
"Washington, D. C). I am not quite sure that I know the question.
The Chairman. The question is — you are the legal counsel for the
Army, and I assumed you discussed this. I know you are aware of
the fact that I have been discussing it now since he got the honorable
discharge. The question is, Has he been removed from the court-
martial jurisdiction of the Army, or does the Army take the position
that even though he received his honorable discharge, he can still be
court-martialed for false swearing or any other crime of which he is
guilty ?
Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, a separation such as Major Peress re-
ceived on February 2 is a final action. Under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, there is a section in the law which permits the Army
to court-martial an individual for offenses which call for penalties in
excess of 5 years, provided the offenses are known.
I submitted the questions raised by 3-our letter to the Judge Advo-
cate General of the Army, who has the responsibility, by statute, in
the Army for military justice, and he gave me an opinion that prob-
ably a court-martial against the individual could not be sustained on
the facts now before the Army.
The Chairman. In other words, on the grounds that this would not
call for a penalty in excess of 5 years, he has been removed from the
jurisdiction of the Army?
Mr. Adams. He has been removed from the jurisdiction of the Army,
and the Army is not aware of any offenses which have been brought
officially to its attention under which he could be tried.
The Chairman. You sav the Army is not aware of any offenses,
Mr. Adams ? " ^
Mr. Adams. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman. I do not pretend to cross-examine the legal counsel
for the Army. You are here as a guest of the committee. But this
matter disturbs me very greatly. I have heard that statement before.
You have the evidence, the sworn testimony, that this man was part
of the Communist conspiracy. You have that from a policewoman
of the city of New York. It has been available to the Army for years,
ever since she has been filing her reports. You have the information
that he took a false oath when he swore that he was not a member of
the Communist Party. You have his refusal to answer questions
before a Senate committee. His refusal to answer questions by the
Army would certainly constitute conduct unbecoming to an officer.
I do not think you want the record to stand, John, as saying that
you were not aware of any offense. You said that was not brought
228 HEARmGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
officially to your attention. May I say that you were here in an official
capacity. Everything that this committee develops, including what
we develop in an executive session, is your official knowledge.
As I say, I do not want to put you on the stand here and cross-exam-
ine you, but I am just curious about this fantastic procedure where we
have this man before us, and we invited the legal counsel for the Army
to sit in, listen to all of his testimony. He refused to answer, invoking
the fifth amendment. I wrote to the Secretary of the Army and asked
for his court martial. Before Secretary Stevens could get back to
the United States, somebody in the Army — and I cannot conceive they
were acting in good faith — gave him a hurry-up honorable discharge^
My letter was made public on Monday, February 1 ; and Tuesday morn-
ing, February 2, this man — about whom you have so much testimony
about organizing Communist cells, holding Communist meetings in
his home, attencling Communist leadership schools, his refusal to
answer — was given an honorable discharge.
As you know, John, every Senator receives dozens of letters every
month from young men who have good reasons for not wanting to
serve. They want honorable discharges. If this is the pattern that
is to be followed, if all you need to do is to join the conspiracy against
this Nation to receive the stamp of honor from your country, get an
honorable discharge, then the Communist Party perhaps should go out
and recruit all the — well, although I do not think they would have
much success, go out and try to recruit the young men who would like
to get out of the Army.
I am going to ask you this, but I am not going to ask you to answer
it now : I am going to ask that you give us the names of every officer,
every member of the military personnel or any civilian who had any-
thing to do with this man's promotion, knowing that he was a Com-
munist ; anything to do with his change of orders, knowing that he was
a Communist ; anything to do with his honorable discharge, knowing
he was a Communist, knowing I have suggested a court martial for
him.
I am curious to know whether or not that information will be forth-
coming without a subpena. If not, this is something which will not
be allowed to drop. I want to assure everyone concerned, if it is
humanly possible I intend to get to the bottom of it.
I think here you have the key to the deliberate Communist infiltra-
tion of our Armed Forces, the most dangerous thing. And the men
responsible for the honorable discharge of a Communist are just as
guilty as the man who belongs to the conspiracy himself.
So may I ask you, will the information be forthcoming without
subpena ? If not, I intend to take this right to the very limit to get
the names of all of those individuals, John. If you are not in a posi-
tion to answer that today, I want to know when you can answer it.
Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, the Secretary has given you a letter,
which you received yesterday, which discussed the facts of this case
as he now knows them. He is investigating to determine such addi-
tional facts as he can.
If there can be developed any indication of conspiracy of a sub-
versive nature with reference to the handling of this or any other
officer assignments, those matters will be prosecuted by the Army.
The Chairman. John, I will not take any double-talk, any evasion
on this. Either the Army is going to give me the names of the indi-
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 229
viduals responsible for coddling and honorably discharging a known
Communist — not only a run-of-the-mill but an important member
of the Communist conspiracy — or the Army is going to refuse.
I may say now, for the benefit of everyone concerned, if the Army
refuses, I intend to take this to the floor of the Senate, and I intend
to try to have cited for contempt any man in the military — and I do
not care whether he is a civilian or an officer — who tries to cover up
those responsible for this most shameful, most f antatistic situation.
If you cannot answer that today, I would like to know when I can
get the answer. It is a simple decision. I want to know whether or
not there is a new day in the Army or not. I have a lot of respect for
Secretary Stevens, and I received a letter which I cannot conceive of
Secretary Stevens having himself written. He may have.
Complete double-talk does not answer any of our questions. We
are not going to take this, John, in this case. We are going to make
an example here and see if we cannot set the pattern for a cleanout
of those who have been invited into the military.
If the new Secretary wants to do that himself, very good. I tliink
he will. But I will want to know within 24 hours whether or not the
Army is going to give us the names of those whom I just indicated.
We will ask for that information by tomorrow night.
If that period of time you think is unreasonable, we will give you
additional time. I will be in Albany holding hearings tomorrow,,
and I will want to get that information there.
Mr. Peress, just 1 or 2 more questions. Wliile you were an officer
in the Army, did you ever have access to any decoding or encoding
machines ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. No.
The Chairman. Were you ever O. D.? Were you ever officer of
the day ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. Yes.
The Chairman. How often did you serve as officer of the day?
Mr. Peress. Dental O. D. That just covers the dental clinic for
emergency treatment that may come up. There is no administrative
responsibility. It is just to take care of emergency dental situations.
I was O. D. in rotation. It came up depending on the number of
dental officers. If we had 20 dentat officers, it was every 3 weeks.
Wlien we were down lower, it would come around more frequently.
The Chairman. Your testimony is, then, that during all the time
you were in the military, you never had access to any encoding or
decoding machines?
Mr. Peress. I don't even know what they are.
The Chairman. You say you don't know what they are?
Mr. Peress. I have never seen such a machine.
The Chairman. Do you know what an encoding machine is?
Mr. Peress. No.
The Chairman. You don't know what is meant by an encoding
machine ?
Mr. Peress. No, I don't.
The Chairman. Do you know what is meant by a decoding
machine ?
Mr. Peress. That I can figure out.
230 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The Chairman. You can figure that out.
Did you ever see any messages, either before or after they were
decoded, either while you were an officer of the day or otherwise?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. Unless you mean my orders to take a leave of absence
or to take part of my annual leave. I don't know if that is a coded
or decoded message. I thought it was mimeographed.
The Chairman. I think you know what I mean. I am just trying
to get the facts.
Is it your testimony that, as far as you know, other than routine
orders, change of station, leave orders, other than orders of that kind
you never saw any material, either before or after it was decoded? I
have special reference to the times when you served as O. D.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. There is just a dental O. D, form, the name of the
patient, serial number, and what you did for him. That is the only
official printed material that you handle on O. D.
The Chairman. General Zwicker, may I ask you a question. You
can stay right there.
Whenever I served as O. D. — and I think this has been general prac-
tice in the Marine Corps, the Navy, and the Army — you normally had
access to the encoding and decoding machines. Ordinarily an officer
of the rank of major or above must take his stint at encoding or
decoding.
Could you tell me whether or not that has been the practice at Camp
Kilmer?
Brig. Gen. Ralph Zwicker (commanding officer, Camp Kilmer,
N. J.). It is not.
The Chairman. In other words, so far as you know, this individual
never had access to any confidential or secret material ?
General Zwicker. He did not.
The Chairman. Your answer is what?
General Zwicker. He did not.
The Chairman. Just one other question. General. I did not intend
to impose upon you this morning.
His Army file contains reference to his being considered for — and
I think I am quoting it correctly — sensitive work in May of 1953.
Would you have any idea what that sensitive work was? If you do
not know, we will show you the file to refresh your recollection. The
file shows that in May, that is, after it was fully known that he was a
Communist, the file shows that he was considered for sensitive work.
The file does not show whether he was rejected or not. Just offliand,
you wouldn't know what that sensitive work would be?
General Zwicker. I do not.
The Chairman. I wonder if you can do this: You are appearing
this afternoon in executive session. I would like to have you here to
listen to all of this testimony. If you have an aide with you, I wonder
if you could have somebody call Camp Kilmer and find out just what
the sensitive work was that he was being considered for.
Mr. Peress. I might be able to help you on that.
General Zwicker. Even if I did know, I would not be privileged to
tell you, under the Executive order which forbids us to discuss matters
of that nature.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 231
The Chairman. I may say, General, you will be in difficulty if you
refuse to tell us what sensitive work a Communist was being consid-
ered for. There is no Executive order for the purpose of protecting
Communists. I want to tell you right now, you will be asked that
question this afternoon. You will be ordered to make available that
information.
Mr. Peress. I think I might know the answer to that, though I never
heard about it. May I answer?
The Chairman. You may.
Mr. Peress. Apparently I was considered the best dentist at the
post there, and they needed an extra prosthodontist. And where I was
doing general dentistry, which is filling and routine dentistry, they
needed another man to help the prosthodontist.
In approximately May 1953, 1 was unofficially promoted to the pros-
thetic section, where I worked through August; and then, because
there was a falling off in operative work, I was put back to doing
operative work, because of the production there. The records will
show that my production in operative was also the greatest in the
clinic.
The Chairman. Let us return to the questions.
Mr. Peress. This referred to a change of M. O. S., they called it.
The Chairman. We are dealing, not with sensitive nerves in the
teeth ; we are dealing with a security matter, I asked whether or not
the general knew what sensitive security work you were being con-
sidered for. You say that had to do with the teeth.
Mr. Peress, Well, it was approximately May 1953, that the colonel
called me down and said that they had been considering me — not
a promotion in rank, but a promotion in work — to go up to prosthetics
and work there. It is my own opinion that I was very good.
The Chairman. Mr. Peress, the record shows that you signed a
document identical to exhibit 9, which I will show you. You signed
that under oath, certifying nonmembership in subversive organiza-
tions, naming the organizations
Mr, Peress. I decline to answer that question.
The Chairman, Let me finish before you decline.
When you signed that, were you falsely swearing, or were you
telling the truth '?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr, Peress. I decline to answer that question under the fifth
amendment.
The Chairman. You are entitled to decline.
Mr, Rainville. I am Harold Rainville, from Senator Dirksen's
office. While the Senator is seeking certain material which he wants
to question you on, may I just develop one thing which I think has
been overlooked here.
Did you ever serve overseas?
(The witness conferred with his counsel,)
Mr. Peress. No,
Mr, Rainville, Were you ever ordered to go overseas ?
Mr. Peress, Yes,
Mr. Rainville. Were your orders then changed ?
Mr. Peress. Yes,
Mr, Rainville. Do you know why they were changed ?
Mr. Peress. I can only surmise. I was given no official reason.
■232 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
I Mr. Rainville. Were you ever interrogated after the change, any
discussion as to your future assignment ?
Mr. Peress. i had orders to go to Fort Lewis and to proceed from
there to Yokohama, Japan. I got to Fort Lewis, and I got in touch
with the Red Cross. They secured an emergency leave for me. I had
compassionate reasons to request a reassignment. Tliere are Army
regulations under the title of "Compassionate Reassignment."
The Red Cross got — after investigating the case — got the time for
me, and through channels I was reassigned to Camp Kilmer.
Mr. Rainville. Do you mind telling us what the emergency was?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. Well, as you know, sir, they are part of the record, and
I do mind telling you, because I don't feel it is integral to the investi-
gation that you are carrying on now, the reasons for it. But they
are part of the official records.
Mr. Rainville. Well, if I am correct in my information, it was
because your 6-year-old daughter needed psychiatric treatment ; is that
right?
Mr. Peress. She was undergoing it at the time. That was one of
the reasons.
Mr. Rainville. Did you get any aid in receiving that cancellation
of your embarkation orders, other than the Red Cross ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. Could you be more specific about that, sir ?
Mr. Rainville. Let me be a little bit explanatory. We in the Sen-
ators' offices are frequently called upon for emergency help whenever
there is a situation of this kind. We frequently find that in situa-
tions which are much more critical, a dying wife who is dying of can-
cer or a dying child, it makes it very difficult for us to stop an em-
barkation order even for a temporary reason.
I have no doubt your daughter needed the treatment. Neverthe-
less, it seems a little odd to me that you should be completely re-
assigned. A man with the ability as a dentist such as you have would
certainly have been needed abroad. I wanted to know. Did you know
somebody in the Adjutant General's office? You didn't speak to any
Congressman or Senator, and yet just the Red Cross was able to stop
it?
Mr. Peress. I didn't speak to any Congressman or Senator, and the
reasons are not as far-fetched as you attempt to seem to understand
them at this point. As I say, the authority exists in the Army regu-
lations, which are also available to you, and the Red Cross does the
investigating as to whether there is really a compassionate need for
consideration of the case as to stop an embarkation.
The Chairman. I think in fairness to the Red Cross — I do not Iniow
who investigated this case — as I understand it, the Red Cross merely
makes an investigation and does not take any active part in getting
a change or cancellation of orders. The Red Cross merely reports
the facts. I believe that is correct. I may be wrong in that.
Mr. Peress. As I was saying, the Red Cross reports on whether
there exists sufficient reason to warrant a consideration by the Army,
because otherwise the orders cannot be halted in time.
Mr. Rainville. Very f requentlv the Red Cross comes to us and asks
for our aid because very frequently they alone cannot get these things
•done in the time allowed.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 233
My question is, if the Ked Cross did this, and did it alone for you,
from my experience in handling hundreds of these cases a week, for
what is trivial compared to other things — not to you, of course, a
trivial reason — I would like to know if you did not know someone
some place, somebody in the Adjutant General's office, perhaps a party
member ?
Mr. Peress. To my knowledge, I know nobody in the Adjutant
General's office, without qualification.
Mr. Rainville. In 1949, did you serve in a Communist cell with
anybody who might have had influence in the Army, who was an
officer in the Army ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. That question I decline to answer, on the fifth amend-
ment.
Mr. Rainville. I presume it is useless to ask you whether or not
that person still is in the Adjutant General's office ?
Mr. Peress. Wliich person ?
Mr. Rainville. The person you decline to answer about.
Mr. Peress. Does such a person exist because of the posing of the
question ?
Mr. Rainville. I would presume if he didn't exist, it would be easier
for you to say no than to decline to answer.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
The Chairman. You will either talk for the record or you will talk
only to your counsel. I will hear none of these speeches off the record
from you. If you want to discuss any matter with your counsel, you
will do it in an undertone so that only you and he can hear it. Other-
wise you will speak for the record.
Mr. Rainville. Just one last question. Your daughter is still
undergoing these treatments, and that is the reason you were still
here until February 2 ?
Mr. Peress. I don't know the reason I am here, but my daughter is
still undergoing the treatments.
The Chairman. There is one further question. Did a member of
the Communist Party help you get your orders changed from Yoko-
hama to Camp Kilmer?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question on the grounds that it
might tend to incriminate me.
The Chairman. Were you successful in forming a Communist cell
at Camp Kilmer ?
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question under the fifth amend-
ment.
The Chairman. Did your wife attend a Communist leadership
school ?
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question.
The Chairman. Just to refresh your recollection, we will give you
the name of the school.
Mr. CoHN. It was the leadership training course at t>»e Inwood
Victory Club, which was conducted at 139 Dyckman Street.
The Chairman. With your memory refreshed, did you attend that
leadership school ?
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question on the grounds thar
it might tend to incriminate me, under the fifth amendment.
234 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The Chairman, How long have you been married?
Mr. Peress. What is the question ?
The Chairman. How long have you been married, just rouglily?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. Is that relevant to this investigation ?
The Chairman. Answer the question.
Mr. Peress. Since June 7, 1942.
The Chairman. Does your wife have any brothers or sisters work-
ing for the Government ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
The Chairman. Or for any Government agency?
■ Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question.
The Chairman. You are ordered to answer that question.
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question under the fifth amend-
ment.
The Chairman. You go right ahead, Mister, and decline.
Do you have any brothers or sisters working for any Government
agency ?
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question.
The Chairman. You are ordered to answer.
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer.
The Chairman. Give us the names of your brothers.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. William
Tlie Chairman. What is his last name? The same as yours?
Mr. Peress. The same as mine.
The Chairman. What is his address?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. Brooklyn, I will have to look it up.
The Chairman. Is he a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that.
The Chairman. Whereabouts in Brooklyn does William live?
Mr. Peress. I don't know the name of the section.
The Chairman. The last question was: Where does William live
in Brooklyn?
Mr. Peress. I said I don't — what do you mean; the street?
The Chairman. Yes, as best you can tell us.
Mr. Peress. I don't know.
The Chairman. You don't know what street he lives on?
Mr, Peress. I am not sure. I know how to go there.
The Chairman. How do you go there?
Mr. Peress. I drive on the Belt Parkway from my house and go
down Flatlands Avenue. I don't know the streets where I turn over
to go there.
The Chairman. What is your brother's occupation?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question.
The Chairman. You are ordered to answer it.
Mr. Peress. I decline, sir, under the fifth amendment.
The Chairman. Does he work for the Government, the United
States Government?
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer.
The Chairman. You are ordered to answer.
Mr. Peress. I decline.
i
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 235
The Chairman. How many other brothers do you have ?
Mr. Peress. One.
The Chairman. What is his name?
Mr. Peress. Same last name; Abraham Herbert.
The Chairman. And where does Abraham work ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. Where does he work?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Peress. 10 Hillside Avenue.
The Chairinian. 10 Hillside Avenue. Wliat kind of work does
he do?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
The Chairman. Let's put it this way: Does he work either in a
defense plant or for any Government agency ?
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question under the fifth amend-
ment.
The Chairman. Do you feel if you were to tell us the truth in answer
to that question that answer might tend to incriminate you ?
Mr. Peress. It might.
The Chairman. Do you feel it might?
Mr. Peress. I feel it might.
The Chairman. Do you feel if you were to tell us the truth as to
where William worked that answer might tend to incriminate you?
Mr. Peress. I feel it might.
The Chairman. Again, while I don't think I owe any duty to mem-
bers of the Communist conspiracy, I do want to let you know what this
committee intends to do, insofar as I, as chairman, can get them to
do it, so you cannot claim you were entrapped or claim ignorance at
some future proceedings. I intend to find out, obviously, what your
two brothers are doing. If their occupation could in no way tend
to incriminate you, I will ask that you be cited for contempt. I just
want you to know that. I just want you to know that you Communists
cannot play with the fifth amendment before this committee.
Do you have any sisters ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
The Chairman. While Mr. Peress is consulting with his counsel,
Mr. Adams, what I would like to have this afternoon is the name of
the individual who has been in charge of Peress' personnel file which
we subpenaed. I would like to have him before us under oath on the
question of the completeness of the file.
I want to tell you, in view of the fact that we have always been
laying our cards strictly on the table with you and with Mr. Stevens,
that we have an inventory of the file at the time we subpenaed it, and
we have compared that with the file as handed to us. So I will want
the man who was in charge of this file, who answered the subpena and
presented it — I want him here under oath to explain the discrepancy
between the inventory which we received from another Government
agency and the inventory as the file was handed to us.
I assume that you might have some difficulty getting him in here
this afternoon. If possible, I would like to have him this afternoon;
and if not, we will want to hear him in Washington next week.
Mr. Peress. I will decline to answer that under the fifth amendment.
The Chairman. You decline to answer whether you have any
sisters ?
52461 — 54 16
236 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Peress. I thought you were back on the other point. No; I
have no sisters.
The Chairman. You have no sisters. Is your father living ?
Mr. Peress. Yes.
The Chairman. Is he working for the Government?
(The witness conferred with his counseh)
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
The Chairman. What is you father's first name ?
Mr. Peress. On the last question, my father is not working at all.
The Chairman. Your father is not working ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
The Chairman. Mr. Peress, I realize this as a waste of the com-
mittee's time to ask you this question, except that we want the record
complete. Can you tell us, can you shed any light at all on the ques-
tion of why you were commissioned, why you were promoted, why
you were given an honorable discharge after the public records dis-
closed that you were a Communist Party leader; after the record
shows as early as April of 1953 your commanding officer and the com-
manding officer of the First Army joined in a recommendation to have
you immediately separated after you refused to tell the Army whether
you were a part of the Communist conspiracy ?
As I say, I realize it is a waste of time asking you to answer the ques-
tion, but I want to have the record complete. Wliat is your answer?
Mr. Peress. I really couldn't make a question out of it. Would
you repeat it please ?
The Chairman. No, it is not necessary.
Mr. Peress. What was the significance of April 1953 ?
The Chairman. May I say, for the benefit of your counsel, while
this fifth amendment Communist may have been removed from the
court martial jurisdiction of the Army, he has not been removed from
the jurisdiction of our civil courts. I am referring the entire record
in this case, both in executive session and in public session, together
with the affidavits which he has signed, obviously false affidavits,
to the Justice Department with the suggestion that this be submitted
to a grand jury for criminal prosecution.
I may say to counsel, as a courtesy to counsel, if you will keep in
touch with the chief counsel of our committee, Mr. Roy Cohn, he will
keep you informed as to the steps that we take in Mr. Peress' case.
Mr. Peress, you are not released from the subpena. You will con-
sider yourself under subpena.
Let me ask counsel, when we want this individual again would
you prefer that we notify you, or would you prefer that the notice
go directly to Peress ?
Mr. Faulkner. You may notify me.
The Charman. We try to give sufficient notice so that it can fit into
your other work.
I assume 4 or 5 days or a week's time would be sufficient?
Mr. Faulkner. We are ready, willing, and able to testify at any
time we are called upon. We came down here the last time without
subpena, in executive session.
Tlie Chairman. Yes. You were ordered down by the Army.
Mr. FAUiiKNER. There was no order, Mr. Senator.
The Chairman. We will not waste any time on that.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 237
You understand, ]\Ir. Peress, you are under subpena. Your coun-
sel will be notified when you are to return before the committee.
This afternoon at 2 : 30, we will hear the Army, certain Army offi-
cers, in executive session.
Again, may I say that the legal counsel for the Army is invited to-
be present, if he cares to.
Mr. Faulkner. Are we requested to remain for the rest of the day ?
The Chairman. No. You will be notified when you are wanted
again.
(Whereupon, at 12 : 15 p. m., the public hearing was recessed, subject
to call.)
TESTIMONY OF BRIG. GEN. RALPH W. ZWICKER, UNITED STATES
ARMY; ACCOMPANIED BY CAPT. W. J. WOODWARD, MEDICAL
CORPS, UNITED STATES ARMY
General Zwicker. I do.
Before we start, there is no need for a medical officer to be in here.
The Chairman. That is O. K.
Mr. CoHN. A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client,
and it is the same thing with a man who tries to be his own doctor.
General, could we have your full name?
General Zwicker. Ralph W. Zwicker.
Mr, CoHN. General, to see if we can save a little time here, isn't the
situation this — by the way, you have been commanding officer at Kilmer
since when?
General Zwicker. Since the middle of July last year.
Mr. CoHN. Has the Peress case come to your attention since that
time ? I am not asking questions about it.
General Zwicker. Yes.
Mr. CoHN. It has come to your attention and you have a familiarity
with that case?
General Zwicker. Yes.
Mr. CoHN. Now, general, would you like to be able to tell us exactly
what happened in that case, and what steps you took and others took
down at Kilmer to take action against Peress a long time before action
was finally forced by the committee ?
General Zwicker. That is a toughie.
Mr. CoHN. All I am asking you now is if you could, if you were at
liberty to do so, would you like to be in a position to tell us that story ?
General Zwicker. Well, may I say that if I were in a position to do
so, I would be perfectly glad to give the committee any information
that they desired.
Mr. CoHN. You certainly feel that that information would not
reflect unfavorably on you ; is that correct?
General Zwicker. Definitely not.
Mr. CoHN. And would not reflect unfavorably on a number of other
people at Kilmer and the First Army ?
General Zwicker. Definitely not.
The Chairman. It would reflect unfavorably upon some of them,
of course ?
General Zwicker. That I can't answer, sir. I don't know.
The Chairman. Well, you know that somebody has kept this man
on, knowing he was a Communist, do you not ?
238 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
General Zwicker. No, sir.
The Chairman. You know that somebody has kept him on know-
ing that he has refused to tell whether he was a Communist, do you
not?
General Zwicker. I am afraid that would come under the category
of the Executive order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. What?
General Zwicker. I am afraid an answer to that question would
come under the category of the Presidential Executive order.
The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer the question.
General Zwicker. Would you repeat the question, please?
Mr. CoHN. Read it to the general.
(The question referred to was read by the reporter.)
General Zwicker. I respectfully decline to answer, Mr. Chairman,
on the grounds of the directive, Presidential directive, which, in my
interpretation, will not permit me to answer that question.
The Chairman. You know that somebody signed or authorized an
honorable discharge for this man, knowing that he was a fifth amend-
ment Communist, do you not?
General Zwicker. I know that an lionorable discharge was signed
for the man.
The Chairman. The day the honorable discharge was signed, were
you aware of the fact that he had appeared before our committee ?
General Zwicker. I was.
The Chairman. And had refused to ansAver certain questions?
General Zw^icker. No, sir, not specifically on answering any ques-
tions. I knew that he had appeared before your committee.
The Chairman. Didn't you read the news ?
General Zwicker. I read the news releases.
The Chairman. And the news releases were to the effect that he had
refused to tell whether he was a Communist, and that there was evi-
dence that he had attended Communist leadership schools. It was on
all the wire service stories, was it not ? You knew generally what he
was here for, did you not?
General Zwicker. Yes; indeed.
The Chairman. And you knew generally that he had refused to tell
whethei^fte was a Communist, did you not?
General Zwicker. I don't recall whether he refused to tell whether
he was a Communist.
The Chairman. Are you the commanding oflScer there?
General Zwicker. I am the commanding general.
The Chairman. Wlien an officer appears before a committee and
refuses to answer, would you not read that story rather carefully?
Genera] Zwicker. I read the press releases.
The Chairman. Then, General, you knew, did you not, that he
appeared before the committee and refused, on the grounds of the
fifth amendment, to tell about all of his Communist activities? You
knew that, did you not?
General Zwicker. I knew everything that was in the press.
The Chairman, Don't be coy with me. General.
General Zwicker. I am not being coy, sir.
The Chairman. Did you have that general picture?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 239
General Zwicker. I believe I remember reading in the paper that
he had taken refuge in the fifth amendment to avoid answering
questions before the committee.
The Chairman, About communism?
General Zwicker. I am not too certain about that.
The Chairman. Do you mean that you did not have enough interest
in the case, General, the case of this major who was in your command,
to get some idea of what questions he had refused to answer ? Is that
correct ?
General Zwicker. I think that is not putting it quite right, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. You put it right, then.
General Zwicker. I have great interest in all of the officers of my
command, with whatever they do.
The Chairman. Let's stick to fifth-amendment Communists, now.
Let's stick to him. You told us you read the press releases.
General Zwicker. I did.
The Chairman, But now you indicate that you did not know that he
refused to tell about his Communist activities. Is that correct '?
General Zwicker. I know that he refused to answer questions for the
committee.
The Chairman. Did you know that he refused to answer questions
about his Communist activities?
General Zwicker. Specifically, I don't believe so.
The Chairman. Did you have any idea?
General Zwicker. Of course I had an idea.
The Chairman. What do you think he was called down here for?
General Zwicker. For that specific purpose.
The Chairman. Then you knew that those were the questions he was
asked, did you not? General, let's try and be truthful. I am going
to keep you here as long as you keep hedging and hemming.
General Zwicker. I am not hedging.
The Chairman. Or hawing.
General Zwicker. I am not hawing, and I don't like to have anyone
impugn my honesty, which you just about did.
The Chairman. Either your honesty or your intelligence; I can't
help impugning one or the other, when you tell us that a major in your
command who was known to you to have been before a Senate com-
mittee, and of whom you read the press releases very carefully — to
now have you sit here and tell us that you did not know whether he
refused to answer questions about Conununist activities, I had seen
all the press releases, and they all dealt with that. So when you do
that. General, if you will pardon me, I cannot help but question either
your honesty or your intelUigence, one or the other. I want to be
frank with you on that.
Now, is it your testimony now that at the time you read the stories
about Major Peress, that you did not know that he had refused to
answer questions before this committee about his Communist
activities ?
General Zwicker. I am sure I had that impression.
The Chairman. Did you also read the stories about my letter to
Secretary of the Army Stevens in which I requested or, rather, sug-
gested that this man be court-martialed, and that anyone that pro-
tected him or covered up for him be court-martialed?
240 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
The Chairiman. That appeared in the papers on Sunday and Mon-
day, right ?
General Zwicker. I don't recall the exact date.
The Chairman. At least, it appeared before he got his honorable
discharge ?
General Zwicker. I don't know that that was true, either, sir.
The Chairman. In any event, you saw it in a current paper, did
you?
General Zwicker. I did.
The Chairman. You did not see the story later. So that at the
time he was discharged, were you then aware of the fact that I had
suggested a court-martial for him and for whoever got him special
consideration ?
General Zwicker. If the time jibes, I was.
The Chairman. Were you aware that he was being given a dis-
charge on February 2? In other words, the day he was discharged,
were you aware of it ?
General Zwicker. Yes ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. Wlio ordered his discharge?
General Zwicker. The Department of the Army.
The Chairman. "Who in the Department?
General Zwicker. That I can't answer.
Mr. CoHN. That isn't a security matter ?
General Zwicker. No. I don't know. Excuse me.
Mr. CoHN. Who did you talk to? You talked to somebody?
General Zwicker. No, I did not.
Mr. CoHN. How did you know he should be discharged ?
General Zwicker. You also have a copy of this. I don't know why
you asked me for it. This is the order under which he was discharged,
a copy of that order.
The Chairman. Just a minute.
You are referring to an order of January 19.
General Zwicker. I am not sure, sir. Just a moment.
The Chairman. January 18. Will you tell me whether or not you
were at all concerned about the fact that this man was getting an
honorable discharge after the chairman of the Senate Investigating
Committee had suggested to the Department of the Army that he be
court-martialed ? Did that give you any concern ?
General Z\\^CKER. It may have concerned me, but it could not have
changed anything that was done in carrying out this order.
The Chairman. Did you take any steps to have him retained until
the Secretary of the Army could decide whether he should be court-
martialed ?
General Zavicker. No, sir.
The Chairman. Did it occur to you that you should ?
General Z"\^t:cker. No, sir.
The Chairman. Could you have taken such steps ?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
The Chairman. In other words, there is nothing you could have
done ; is that your statement ?
General Zwicker. That is my opinion.
Mr. Eainville. May I interrupt a minute? Doesn't that order
specifically state that this is subject to your check as to whether he
is in good health and can be discharged ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 241
General Zwicker, May I read it ?
Mr. Rainville. I read the order. It is in there.
General Zwicker. Paragraph 5 of this order states :
Officer will not be separated prior to determination that he is physically quali-
fied for separation by your headquarters.
Mr. Rainville. That is a decision that yon must make ?
General Zwicker. Not me personally. My medical officers.
Mr. Rainville. But he would report to you. He would not make
the decision without giving you, the commanding general, the order
for final verification ?
General Zwicker. It would not be necessary. If something were
found wrong physically with the man, he would be retained.
Mr. Rain\t[lle. He would report to you ?
General Z"wicker. No. He would be retained.
Mr. Rainville. It would be automatic, and you would not have to
sign anything?
General Zwicker. I would not personally, no. The medical officer
would make such a report.
Mr. Rainville. But there was somebody in your outfit who could
say, "This man can go out or can't go out," and that was the doctor?
General Zwicker. He could not keep him in if he were physically
qualified for separation.
Mr. Rainville. But he could say he could not go out, so that there
was discretion within that 90-day period.
The Chairman. Let me ask this question: If this man, after the
order came up, after the order of the 18th came up, prior to his get-
ting an honorable discharge, were guilty of some crime — let us say
that he held up a bank or stole an automobile — and you heard of that
the day before — let us say you heard of it the same day that you heard
of my letter — could you then have taken steps to prevent his discharge,
or would he have automatically been discharged ?
General Zwicker. I would have definitely taken steps to prevent
discharge.
The Chairman. In other words, if you found that he was guilty of
improper conduct, conduct unbecoming an officer, we will say, then
you would not have allowed the honorable discharge to go through,
would you ?
General Zwicker. If it were outside the directive of this order ?
The Chairman. Well, yes, let us s^iy it were outside the directive.
General Zwicker. Then I certainly would never have discharged
him until that part of the case
The Chahcsian. Let us say he went out and stole $50 the night
before.
General Zwicker. He wouldn't have been discharged.
The Chairman. Do you think stealing $50 is more serious than being
a traitor to the country as part of the Communist conspiracy ?
General Zwicker. That, sir, was not my decision.
The Chairman. You said if you learned that he stole $50, you would
have prevented his discharge. You did learn something much more
serious than that. You learned that he had refused to tell whether he
was a Communist. You learned that the chairman of a Senate com-
mittee suggested he be court-martialed. And you say if he had stolen
$50 he would not have gotten the honorable discharge. But merely
being a part of the Communist conspiracy, and the chairman of the
242 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
committee asking that he be court-martialed, would not give you
grounds for holdnig up his discharge. Is that correct?
General Zwicker. Under the terms of this letter, that is correct, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. That letter says nothing about stealing $50, and it
does not say anj'thing about being a Communist. It does not say any-
thing about his appearance before our connnittee. He appeared before
our committee after that order was made out.
Do you think you sound a bit ridiculous, General, when you say that
for $50, you would prevent his being discharged, but for being a part
of the conspiracy to destroy this country you could not prevent his
discharge ?
General Zvncjs.F,R. I did not say that, sir.
The Chairman. Let's go over that. You did say if you found out
he stole $50 the night before, he would not have gotten an honorable
discharge the next morning?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
The Chairman. You did learn, did you not, from the newspaper
reports, that this man was part of the Communist conspiracy, or at
least that there was strong evidence that he was. Did you not think
that was more serious than the theft of $50 ?
General Zwicker. He has never been tried for that, sir, and there
was evidence, Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. Don't you give me doubletalk. The $50 case, that
he had stolen the night before, he has not been tried for that.
General Zwicker. That is correct. He didn't steal it yet.
The Chairman. Would you wait until he was tried for stealing the
$50 before you prevented his honorable discharge ?
( reneral Zwicker. Either tried or exonerated.
The Chaikman. You would hold up the discharge until he was tried
or exonerated?
General Zwicker. For stealing the $50 ; yes.
The Chairman. But if you heard that tliis man was a traitor — in
other words, instead of hearing that he had stolen $50 from the corner
store, let us say you heard that he was a traitor, he belonged to the
Communist conspiracy ; that a Senate committee had the sworn testi-
mony to that effect. Then would you hold up his discharge until he
was either exonerated or tried ?
General Zwicker. I am not going to answer that question, I don't
believe, the way you want it, sir.
The CHAHiMAN. I just want you to tell me the truth.
General Zwicker. On all of the evidence or anything that had been
presented to me as Commanding General of Camp Kilmer, I had no
authority to retain him in the service.
The Chairman. You say that if you had heard that he had stolen
$50, then you could order him retained. But when you heard that he
was part of the Communist conspiracy, that subsequent to the time the
orders were issued a Senate committee took the evidence under oath
that he was part of the conspiracy, you say that would not allow you
to hold up his discharge?
General Zwicker. I was never officially informed by anyone that he
was part of the Communist conspiracy, Mr. Senator.
The Chairman. Well, let's see now. You say you were never offi-
cially informed?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 243
General Zwicker. No.
The Chairman. If you heard that he had stolen $50 from someone
down the street, if you did not hear it officially, then could you hold
up his discharge? Or is there same peculiar way you must hear it?
General Zwicker. I believe so, yes, sir, until I was satisfied that he
had or hadn't, one way or the other.
The Chairman. You would not need any official notification so far
far as the 50 bucks is concerned ?
General Zwicker. Yes.
The Chairman. But you say insofar as the Communist conspiracy
is concerned, you need an official notification ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir ; because I was acting on an official order,
having precedence over that.
The Chairman. How about the $50 ? If one of your men came in a
half hour before he got his honorable discharge and said, "General", I
just heard downtown from a police officer that this man broke into a
store last night and stole $50," you would not give him an honorable
discharge until you had checked the case and found out whether that
was true or not ; would you ?
General Zwicker. I would expect the authorities from downtown to
inform me of that or, let's say, someone in a position to suspect that
he did it.
The Chairman. Let's say one of the trusted privates in your com-
mand came in to you and said, "General, I was just downtown and I
have evidence that Major Peress broke into a store and stole $50."
You would not discharge him until you had checked the facts, seen
whether or not the private was telling the truth and seen whether or
not he had stolen the $50 ?
General Zwicker. No; I don't believe I would. I would make a
check, certainly, to check the story.
The Chairman. Would you tell us. General, why $50 is so much
more important to you than being part of the conspiracy to destroy a
nation which you are sworn to defend ?
General Zwicker. Mr. Chairman, it is not, and you know that as
well as I do.
The Chairman. I certainly do. That is why I cannot understand
you sitting there, General, a General in the Army, and telling me that
you could not, would not, hold up his discharge having received
information
General Zwicker. I could not hold up his discharge.
The Chairman. Why could you not do it in the case of an allegation
of membership in a Communist conspiracy, where you could if you
merely heard some private's word that he had stolen $50 ?
General Zwicker. Because, Mr. Senator, any information that
appeared in the press or any releases was well known to me and well
known to plenty of other people long prior to the time that you ever
called this man for investigation, and there were no facts or no alle-
gations, nothing presented from the time that he appeared before your
first investigation that was not apparent prior to that time.
The Chairman. In other words, as you sat here this morning and
listened to the testimony you heard nothing new ?
Mr. CoHN. Nothing substantially new?
General Zwicker. I don't believe so.
244 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The CsAniMAisr. So that all of these facts were known at the time
he was ordered to receive an honorable discharge ?
General Zwicker. I believe they are all on record ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. Do you think, General, that anyone who is respon-
sible for giving an honorable discharge to a man who has been named
under oath as a member of the Commimist conspiracy should himself
be removed from the military ?
General Zwicker. You are speaking of generalities now, and not
on specifics — is that right, sir, not mentioning about any one par-
ticular person ?
The Chairman. That is right.
General Zwicker. I have no brief for that kind of person, and if
there exists or has existed something in the system that permits that,
I say that that is wrong.
The Chairman. I am not talking about the system. I am asking
you this question, General, a very simple question : Let us assume that
John Jones, who is a major in the United States Army
General Zwicker. A what, sir ?
The Chairman. Let us assume that John Jones is a major in the
United States Army. Let us assume that there is sworn testimony
to the effect that he is part of the Communist conspiracy, has attended
Communist leadership schools. Let us assume that Maj, John Jones
is under oath before a committee and says, "I cannot tell you the truth
about these charges because, if I did, I fear that might tend to incrimi-
nate me." Then let us say that General Smith was responsible for
this man receiving an honorable discharge, knowing these facts. Do
you think that General Smith should be removed from the military,
or do you think he should be kept on in it ?
General Zwicker. He should be by all means kept if he were acting
under competent orders to separate that man.
The Chairman, Let us say he is the man who signed the orders.
Let us say General Smith is the man who originated the order.
General Zwicker. Originated the order directing his separation?
The Chairman. Directing his honorable discharge.
General Zwicker. Well, that is pretty hypothetical.
The Chairman. It is pretty real. General.
General Zwicker. Sir, on one point, yes. I mean, on an individual,
yes. But you know that there are thousands and thousands of people
being separated daily from our Army.
The Chairman. General, you understand my question
General Zwicker. Maybe not.
The Chairman. And you are going to answer it.
General Zwicker. Repeat it.
The Chairman. The reporter will repeat it.
(The question referred to was read by the reporter.)
General Zwicker. That is not a question for me to decide. Senator.
The Chairman. You are ordered to answer it. General. You are
an employee of the people.
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You have a rather important job. I want to know
how you feel about getting rid of Communists.
General Zwicker. I am all for it.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 245
The Chairman. All right. You will answer that question, unless
you take the fifth amendment. I do not care how long we stay here,
you are going to answer it.
General Zwicker. Do you mean how I feel toward Communists ?
The Chairman. I mean exactly what I asked you, General ; nothing
else. And anyone with the brains of a 5-year-old child can understand
that question.
The reporter will read it to you as often as you need to hear it so that
you can answer it, and then you will answer it.
General Zwicker. Start it over, please.
(The question was reread by the reporter.)
General Zwicker. I do not think he should be removed from the
military.
The Chairman. Then, General, you should be removed from any
command. Any man who has been given the honor of being promoted
to general and who says, "I will protect another general who protected
Communists," is not fit to wear that uniform. General. I think it is a
tremendous disgrace to the Army to have this sort of thing given to the
public. I intend to give it to them. I have a duty to do that. I
intend to repeat to the press exactly what you said. So you know
that. You will be back here. General.
Do you know who initiated the order for the honorable discharge
of this major?
General Zwicker. As a person, sir?
The Chairman. Yes.
General Zwicker. No, I do not.
The Chairman. Have you tried to find out ?
General Zwicker. No, I have not.
The Chairman. Have you discussed that matter with Mr. Adams ?
General Zwicker. As a person, no, sir.
The Chairman. How did you discuss it with him other than as a
person ?
General Zwicker. I mean as an individual. This is a Department
of the Army order.
The Chairman. Have you tried to find out who is responsible ?
General Zwicker. Who signed this order?
The Chairman. Who was responsible for the order ?
General Zwicker. No, sir ; I have not.
The Chairman. Are you curious ?
General Zwicker. Frankly, no.
The Chairman. You were fully satisfied, then, when you got the
order to give an honorable discharge to this Communist major?
General Zwicker, I am sorry, sir ?
The Chairman. Read the question.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
General Zwicker. Yes, sir ; I was.
Mr. Cohn. General, I have just one or two questions.
The Chairman. Let me ask one question.
In other words, you think it is proper to give an honorable dis-
charge to a man known to be a Communist ?
General Zwicker. No, I do not.
The Chairman. Wliy do you think it is proper in this case?
General Zwicker. Because I was ordered to do so.
246 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The Chairman. In other words, anything that you are ordered to
do, you think is proper?
General Zwicker. That is correct. Anything that I am ordered
to do by higher authority, I must accept.
The Chairman. Do you think that the higher authority would be
guilty of improper conduct?
General Zwicker. It is conceivable.
The Chairman. Do you think they are guilty of improper conduct
here?
General Zwicker. I am not their judge, sir.
The Chairman. Do 3'ou think to order the honorable discharge for
a Communist major was improper conduct?
General Zwicker. I think it was improper procedure, sir.
The Chairman. Do you think it is improper?
Mr. CoHN. General, I just want to ask you this: Peress was dis-
charged on February 2, which was a Tuesday.
General Zwicker. That is right.
Mr. CoHN. He appeared before the committee on Saturday. On
Monday or Tuesday, did you speak to anybody in the Department of
the Army in Washington, telephonically, about the Peress case ? On
Monday or Tuesday ?
General Zwicker. Let me think a minute.
It is possible that I called First Army to inform them that Peress
had changed his mind and desired a discharge as soon as possible.
Mr. CoHN. Who would you have told in the First Army? Wlia
would you call ? G-2, or General Burress ?
General Zwicker. I don't think in that case I would call General
Burress.
Mr. CoHN. General Seabree?
General Zwicker. No. It would have been G-1, or Deputy Chief
of Staff.
Mr. CoHN. Who is that?
General Zwicker. General Gurney.
Mr. CoiiN. You don't remember which one it was?
General Zwicker. I don't recall that I called.
Mr. CoiiN. Did you talk to Mr. Adams in those days ?
General Zavicker. No, sir.
Mr. CoHN. Did you ever talk to Mr. Adams before yesterday?
You recall whether or not you spoke to him.
General Zwicker. I know Mr. Adams, yes. There was one call,
but I think that came from a member of your committee, from Wash-
ington, requesting that this man appear before your committee first.
The Chairman. You understand the question. Did you talk to
Mr. Adams before yesterday ?
General Zwicker. I don't recall. I don't believe so, sir.
The Chairman. Did you talk to anyone in Washington?
General Zwicker. No, sir, about this case.
The Chairman. Within the week preceding his discharge?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
The Chairman. Did you at any time ever object to this man being
honorably discharged ?
General Zavicker. I respectfully decline to answer that, sir.
The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer it.
General Zwicker. That is on the grounds of this Executive order.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 247
The Chairman. You are ordered to answer. That is a personnel
matter.
General Zwicker. I shall still respectfully decline to answer it.
The Chairman. Did you ever take any steps which would have aided
him in continuing in the military after you knew that he was a Com-
munist?
General Zwicker. That would have aided him in continuing, sir?
The Chairman. Yes.
General Zwicker. No.
The Chairman. Did you ever do anything instrumental in his ob-
taining his promotion after knowing that he was a fifth-amendment
case ?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
The Chairman. Did you ever object to his being promoted?
General Zwicker. I had no opportunity to, sir.
The Chairman. Did you ever enter any objection to the promotion
of this man under your command?
General Zwicker. I had no opportunity to do that.
The Chairman. You say you clid not ; is that correct ?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
The Chairman, And you refuse to tell us whether you objected to
his obtaining an honorable discharge?
General Zwicker. I don't believe that is quite the way the question
was phrased before.
The Chairman. Well, answer it again, then.
General Zwicker. I respectfully request that I not answer that
question.
The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer.
General Zwicker. Under the same authority as cited before, I can-
not answer it.
Mr. CoHN. Did anybody on your staff. General — Colonel Brown or
anyone in G-2 — communicate with the Department of tlie Army on
February 1 or February 2? In other words, in connection with the
discharge ?
General Zwicker. I don't know, but I don't believe so.
Mr. CoHN. To the best of your knowledge, no?
General Zwicker. No.
Mr. CoHN. In other words, on January 18, 1954, you received a
direction from the Secretary, signed by the Adjutant General, I as-
sume that is General Bergin, telling you to give this man an honoral)]e
discharge from the Army at any practicable date, depending on his
desire, but in no event later than 90 days; that that was the order, and
you had nothing from the order to change that order in view of his
testimony before the committee ; and therefore, when the man came in
and wanted an honorable discharge, you felt under this order com-
pelled to give it to him as a decision that had been made by the
Adjutant General. Is that correct?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. CoHN. And you received no additional words from the Adju-
tant General on February 1 or February 2, and before you gave the
discharge you did not call and say, "In view of all of tliis, and his
testimony on Saturday, and Senator McCarthy's request for a court-
ma rf in 1. fliis man i<? in here now, and is that all right?" You never
made any such call ?
248 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
General Zwicker. No ; I did not.
Mr. Rainville. General, I think at one place there you said he
changed his request to an immediate discharge ?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Rainville. Then he had previously objected to the discharge
or at least he wanted the full 90 clays ?
General Zwicker. No, sir. He requested to be discharged on
March 31, 1 think, which would make it 60 days from receipt, rather
than the full 90. He did not ask for the full 90, but he asked for
what amounted to 60 days, 2 months.
Mr. Rainville. Then he came in as soon as he testified, and asked
for an immediate discharge and it was processed routinely ?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Rainville. But you never thought it necessary after he ap-
peared before the committee or when he made that request to discuss
his appearance before the committee with him ?
General Zwicker. I am sorry.
Mr. Rainville. My question is this : After he appeared before the
committee and he was still a member of your command, even though
he was on separation, you didn't ask him to come in and report what
he testified to ?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
Mr. Rainville. And you didn't think it was necessary when he
came in and asked for an immediate discharge instead of 60 days to
ask him what transpired so as to get some kind of an idea as to why
he wanted it immediately, or why he is in a rush to get out now instead
of taking the 60 days that he wanted before that ?
General Zwicker. That was beyond my prerogative. I did not.
Mr. Rainville. As an officer of your command, certainly what we
usually call the old man's privilege there, prerogative, they may ask
that sort of question, and so forth, so long as he is one of your com-
mand. But you didn't do it?
General Zwicker. No. He told me he wanted to be released and
I said, "All right."
Mr. Jones. General, did the counsel of the Army advise you not to
discuss the Peress case?
General Zwicker. He did not.
Mr. Jones. He did not advise you ?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
The Chairman. Who did advise you ?
General Zwicker. No one.
The Chairman. What did you and Mr. Adams talk about yester-
day?
General Zwicker. Mr. Adams and I talked about the various pro-
cedures of prior meetings such as this. He tried to indicate what I
might expect.
Mr. Jones. Did Mr. Adams advise anyone not to discuss the Peress
case to this committee?
General Zwicker. I am sorry. He did not advise me.
Mr. Jones. I mean to your knowledge, did he advise any other
person ?
General Zwicker. To my knowledge he did not.
Mr. Jones. General, what is your considered opinion of this order
here forbidding you to assist this committee in exposing the Com-
munist conspiracy in the Army ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 249
General Zwicker. Sir, I cannot answer that, because it is signed by
the President. The President says don't do it and therefore I don't.
Mr. Jones. What is your considered opinion of that order? You
see now, here is a perfectly good example of a Communist being pro-
moted right in the ranks, all because of this Executive order here, in
many respects, where we could not get at these things earlier. What
is your considered opinion of an order of that nature ?
General Zwicker. I won't answer that, because I will not criticize
my Commander in Chief.
The Chairman. General, you will return for a public session at
10 : 30 Tuesday morning.
General Zwicker. This coming Tuesday ?
The Chairman. Yes.
General Zwicker. Here?
The Chairman. Yes.
General Zwicker, At what time ?
The Chairman. 10 : 30. In the meantime, in accordance with the
order which you claim forbids you the right to discuss this case, you
will contact the proper authority who can give you permission to tell
the committee the truth about the case before you appear Tuesday,
and request permission to be allowed to tell us the truth above the
General Zwicker. Sir, that is not my prerogative, either.
The Chairman. You are ordered to do it.
General Zwicker. I am sorry, sir, I will not do that.
The Cpiairman. All right.
General Zwicker. If you care to have me, I will cite certain other
portions of this.
The Chairman. You need cite nothing. You may step down.
(Whereupon, at 5 : 15 p. m., the committee was recessed, subject to
the call of the Chair.)
Mf ^ ^ 4: 4: 4: ¥
The Chairman. Counsel tell me they are prepared to treat this
as an overall matter; they do not want to take it in installments.
They want to see what the witness has testified to.
Some members of the committee would like to ask questions, now,
but counsel will reserve cross-examination until the entire testimony
of Senatory McCarthy is in.
Mr. Williams. This will be more orderly, if we were to hear this
issue, direct and cross.
Now, that is the only reason I suggested it.
The Chairman. They indicated they were prepared to cross-
examine, when you had finished with his direct.
Mr. Williams. I see. We certainly yield to Mr. Chadwick's wishes.
The Chairman. Does any Senator wish to ask questions at this
point ?
Senator Carlson. Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. Senator Carlson.
Senator McCarthy. But before you start, I wonder if I could im-
pose on the Chair for a brief recess.
Tlie Chairman. We will take a 10-minute recess at this point.
(Whereupon, at 3 : 32 p. m. a 16-minute recess was taken.)
The Chairman. The committee will resume session.
Senator McCarthy. I want to thank the Chair for that recess.
The Chairman. The Chair appreciated the recess as well.
250 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator Carlson was askino- for recognition as we recessed.
Senator Carlson. Mr. Chairman, I wonld just like to ask a few
questions on the methods of operation and committee procedure.
I note from the hearin<^s — and I think the Senator also testified —
for instance, on the ]iearino;s on Thursday, Febnuiry 18, it is stated
that present were :
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Roy Cohn, Daniel Buckley, James
Juliana, Harold Rainville, administrative assistant to Senator Dirk-
sen, and Robert Jones, administrative assistant to Senator Potter.
Now, in checkinj>- throu«>h these hearinj>-s, I note, for instance, on
page 130 Mr. Jones, the administrative assistant to Senator Potter,
participated in the interrogation, and I noticed on page 137 a rather
extensive cross-examination by Mr. Rainville of Mr. Peress. I would
like to ask the Senator if it has been the policy of the committee to
permit administrative assistants to participate in the cross-examina-
tion of witnesses.
Senator McCarthy. Yes. Whenever a man was present represent-
ing a Senator, I felt that he should be entitled to ask questions.
Senator Carlson. ]\Iay I ask the Senator if that is based on com-
mittee action?
Has any action on the part of the Connnittee on (iovernment Opera-
tions, an official motion, given this authority?
Senator McCarthy. There Avas no formal action taken on that.
It was a four-man committee then, you understand. The Democrats
were not on the connnittee, but it was understood I would allow the
administrative assistants to cross-examine. That was agreed in by,
I believe, the connnittee unanimously.
Senator Carlson. Do I understand there was official action taken,
for instance, by the subcommittee of (lOVQrnment Operations Com-
mittee?
Senator McCarthy. I don't know if you would call it official or not,
but it was not a formal meeting at which a motion was passed. How-
ever, I told the Senators, if it \vas all right with them, in view of the
fact they were out of the city during the recess, I would allow their
administrative assistants to appear and represent them and speak for
them and notify them each night, or as often as I felt necessary, as to
what had transpired during that day.
One of the Senators, Senator Mundt, i-equested additional informa-
tion. He requested that the chief of staff wire him after each hearing
and give him a resume of what had transpired. The other two Sen-
ators were satisfied to let their administrative assistants represent
them.
Senator Carlson. Mr. Chairman, I bring this up because I am a
member of the subcommittee headed by Senator Jenner, of Indiana,
and also another member of the committee is Senator Carl Play den
of Arizona, which has been holding extensive hearings on rules and
changes of committee procedure, and it seems to me this is one of the
important matters that should be given some consideration, not only
by our committee, but I think, in view of the criticism we are receiv-
ing over the Nation, not on just the conduct of this particular com-
mittee, but committee procedure generaly, there ought to be some
firm decision made, which I assume, of course, would have to be a
Senate decision on permitting administrative assistants to sit for
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 251
Senators appointed to the United States Senate on committees and
participate in the proceedings.
I can readily understand where an administrative assistant might
bo assigned to listen in and get testimony and report, but I would
have a serious question about administrative assistants, unless by
unanimous action of the committee, participating in cross-
examination.
Senator McCarthy. ^lay I say. Senator, we allow counsel for the
committee — we alloAv staff members — to cross-examine w^here they
are aware of the facts, and I can frankly see no objection to having
an administrative assistant present and represent a Senator and ask
questions.
Senator Carlson. IMr. Chairman, my only point was : If we fol-
lowed this thing and continued it, not only as a practice in the United
States Senate but continued to expand on this method of procedure,
the time will come when we might as well let the administrative assist-
ants sit and the rest of us go fishing. It seems to me it is something
that ought to have serious consideration, not only by this committee,
but I think by the Senate as a whole.
That is the reason I wanted to bring it up.
Senator McCarthy. May I say to the Senator from Kansas the
reason we did this was because the other Senators were extremely
busy. We felt they should be kept informed from day to day as to
what we were doing and the administrative assistants were there
principally as observers; but we did allow them the courtesy of ask-
ing questions. Whether that is a proper procedure or not is certainly
open to debate.
Senator Carlson. Mr. Chairman, this will probably be ruled by the
chairman as very immaterial and very irrelevant, but I think I should
state for the record that committees operate differently.
I happen to be a member of the Finance Committee and during the
illness of Senator Butler of Nebraska, it was suggested by the Senator,
himself, that his administrative assistant be permitted to sit in the
hearings, and the chairman of the committee, Senator INIillikin, as
well as the ranking minority member Senator George, stated not only
at this time but in all past sessions they have refused to permit admin-
istrative assistants to sit in as a representative of a Senator and par-
ticipate in any way in the hearing.
The Chairman. I would say, Senator Carlson, one of the matters
referred to us in Senate Resolution .301 was the amendment offered
by Mr. Bush, which consisted of a set of rules that he was proposing.
Now, while the matter discussed here today is entirely different than
the Bush amendment, still, at the same time, that is one of the subjects
before us, and I think, inasmuch as the i-ecord did show these admin-
istrative assistants as participants in the cross-examination of wit-
nesses there, including, as I recall, General Zwicker, it would be a
pro]>er question to ask Senator McCarthy in the overall picture, the
overall problem that has been placed before us.
Senator McCarthy. At the proper time, I would like to comment on
Senator Bush's proposal. I assume the chairman doesn't want that
now.
The Chairman. No, not now. We will probably make disposition
of it otherwise than by holding hearings.
Senator Stennis.
52461—54 17
252 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator Stennis. I have no question now, Mr. Chairman. I did not
address the chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson of Colorado. No questions.
The Chairman. Senator Case ?
Senator Case. No questions now.
The Chairman. Senator Ervin.
Sentaor Ervin. No questions.
The Chairman. I have 1 or 2 questions, Senator McCarthy, I would
like to ask you with respect to your views on the investigating power
since this question, this particular issue, we have been talking about
today, goes directly to the conduct of hearings and the matter of in-
vestigations.
What is your view with respect to the right of Senators to lecture
witnesses, or sort of pass judgment on them, whether they are guilty
and all that sort of thing, in comiection with these hearings ?
I notice not only in this record we have before us, but in other records
of other committees occasionally a Senator takes out after a witness
who has come in there to testify, even on some legislative matter — and,
of course, this particular investigation we were conducting, I think,
comes squarely within the investigative power with respect to
investigation.
What is your view with respect to the right of a Senator to go
beyond the questioning in getting material ? What right does he have
to go beyond that in the conduct of these hearings?
Senator McCarthy. I think it is part of the cross-examination. He
can nuike comments. He can try to induce a witness to tell the truth
and oftentimes you have a witness that you can induce to tell the
truth.
Take, or example, if I may give you an incident, we had a man be-
fore us in New York. We talked to him. After some discussion, he
said that he could come in and give us all the facts that he had at his
command.
I don't think strictly from the standpoint of lecturing, no, but if it
is part of the cross-examination, I think there should be considerable
latitude in cross-examination. That is the only way you can get at the
facts.
The Chairman. You mean in the way of questions and in the way
of statements ? When I said "lecturing," maybe I put it too severely.
I am very curious about this whole thing because I have held a num-
ber of hearings myself as a member of the Internal Security Commitee.
Incidentally, those were one-man hearings involving Communists
and Communists that have infiltrated into labor unions and all that
sort of thing, and I know the exasperation and irritation and the
provocation there in a very strong degree with some of the witnesses.
But I have always wondered how far I dared to go. I don't think I
have come to the extent yet of finding him guilty of anything. I
simply permitted them to make the record and answer the questions
and let it go at that. I know other chairmen — I am not calling this
to your attention because you have said things about witnesses here,
but because it is a general practice, I noticed in some committees, it to
be a practice for the interrogator to take after the witness, not with
questions but with statements. That is what I would like to get your
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 253
attitude on, because it had a bearing on your attitude in this particular
instance, this episode we are discussing now.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I say this, that I don't
think you can endow any chairman with ability or brains by any rules
that you pass. I think it is up to the chairman of each committee to
use his own judgment in trying to get at the truth. I have been a
judge; you have been a judge. I have seen cross-examiners use vari-
ous different techniques in attempting to get a witness to tell the truth,
and I just don't know of any rule that you can pass along that line.
In this case, we did find that after I told the general what I thought
his duties were, he did change his position and come through with a
different story which I hope was the truth.
As I say, it is just the question of technique of cross-examination.
I don't think that any man here at the table has the same technique.
The Chairman. I understand that. Each examiner will have a
different approach, but I am talking about questions now. You were
mentioning questions with respect to the cross-examination itself. Do
you think it is a proper part of cross-examination or an examination of
a witness — and I am asking this in good faith, because I want to get
the points of view — to say derogatory things or to pass judgment in a
way, in a measure upon the witness who is being examined.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that when you
are cross-examining a witness, if you are honestly and sincerely trying
to get to the facts, if you have got an obstreperous witness, in your
question you may have to make statements which will try to induce
him to give you the truth. I don't call it lecturing.
The Chairman. Let's say observations, making comments and ob-
servations. Let's make it as mild as we can.
Senator McCarthy. I think it is all right to make observations.
Take, for example, I know we had a woman before us, Ruth Levine,
who was in the telecommunications, if I may give an example, handling
top-secret material for some 10 years. I made observations. I begged
her to come forth and tell the truth, give us the facts ; told her that the
country had treated her well ; that I thought she owed a duty not to
take the fifth amendment. She said she wanted one day to think it
over and discuss it with her lawyer and she might come back and give
us the names of the fellow members of the conspiracy. I supposed that
might be considered as a lecture. I would consider it as a part of
questioning, part of an attempt to get the truth. If you were question-
ing her, you might take an entirely different tack ; I don't know. I
think it is up to the individual who is doing the questioning.
I think you certainly should not abuse the witness, no question about
that, but there are times when, as you know, you must get very vigorous
in your cross-examination. Wlien you know that a witness is not
telling the truth, you know he is hiding the facts, then you have got
to use whatever technique you think is the best way of getting the
truth.
As Winslow said, cross-examination is a process of winnowing the
facts and trying to arrive at the truth and sometimes you may coax,
you may beg a witness to tell the truth ; you may suggest to them what
the effects of perjuring themselves are. I think that is all proper. If
you talk to a witness and tell them what will happen if they are guilty
of perjury, the effect upon their families and that sort of thing, that
might be considered a lecture.
254 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
I think it is proper if yon think it is the best way to get the facts in
an important case, especially when you are dealing with treason.
The Chairman. Well, of course, if you are dealing with any crime,
or any particular matter that you think is important to the country,
and important to the Senate, for the purpose of getting information,
the facts of the matter will aid in the passing of legislation, I think
that you are entitled to ask the questions necessary to get that.
Now, do you feel that you are entitled to have more leeway in an
examination in a Senate committee than, we would say, you would be
entitled to if you were before a court and were cross-examining a
witness in court on the judiciary side of the Government?
Senator McCahtiiy. You are not bound by the rules of evidence, of
course, in a committee, so that there is more leeway.
The Chairman. That is with respect to that other matter.
Senator McCarthy. I am trying to answer your question. Senator,
but all I can say is this, that you, as a lawyer, would employ one method
of cross-examination ; Senator Johnson, Senator Stennis, Senator Case,
Senator Ervin, Senator Carlson, might employ methods entirely
different.
Instead of asking a short, brief question as you are inclined to do,
they might ask a long question which could be considered by some as
a speech, but would be considered by them as a question.
I just think it is impossible to answer that question, Senator, except
to say that when you are cross-examining a Avitness, anything that you
can legitimately and honorably do to try and induce that witness to tell
the truth is legitimate cross-examination.
The Chairman. Let me give you an example.
In court, would it be proper for a cross-examiner to say to a witness
that just gave him an answer to just tell him (the witness) he was
lying, if he got an answer he believed to be untrue ?
Senator McCarthy. I have heard it done often in my court. I have
heard lawyers saying that I think you are perjuring yourself. I am
going to ask the judge to have you committed for perjury. I have
heard that done.
If it is done before a jury, there is a request for a mistrial. If it is
not done before a jury, it is a difl'erent situation.
The Chairman. Well, it is a very interesting subject, to me, at
least, to know the views of Senators, and particularly in this case,
because that is one of the charges against you Avith respect to your
conduct, the treatment of witnesses. I have wanted to know just
what your view is.
I am not asking this to be critical; I am asking it sincerely to get
your point of view with respect to Senate investigations.
1 know the charges ai-e made against us that we mistreat witnesses.
Senator McCarthy. May I say. Senator, that we try to give a wit-
ness every conceivable consideration. We give him a lot more con-
sideration than he gets in court. For example, in a court of law, a
lawyer cannot sit beside a witness and counsel witli him after a ques-
tion is asked — in effect, coach him. It cannot be done before a grand
jury-
Before our committee, we allow every witness to have counsel, let
him talk freely with his counsel regardless of whether he is a fifth
amendment Communist or not. We inform him that if they want a
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 255
private room at any time to have a consultation, they can have it —
something you cannot have in a court of law.
We try to, we try to give a witness every consideration. However,
when you get an obsterperous witness, a witness that changes his story
from page to page to page, it is entirely possible that sometimes you
may get a little too impatient with him but you are trying to get the
truth from him.
The Chairman. Is it not a fact that sometimes we get very provoked
and we may lose our tempers ?
Senator McCarthy. I have tried not to lose mine.
The Chairman. I realize that in this matter of communism, you
had this particular subject before you when you examined the witness,
that there are some very, very provoking answers and attitudes and
conducts on the part of those who are responding. I personally have
had them shout at me and call the Senate and the country everything
they could think of. I never did feel that I quite had the right to pass
judgment on them right there and then. I felt I was there as a part
of the Senate, an arm of the Senate to ask them questions. I did not
go beyond that, but I am interested to know just how far a Senator
could go under the circumstances.
I may have been wrong in my opinion. It might have been that
I could say that because they refused to answer, sought the protec-
tion of the fifth amendment, that I could say right there and then that
they were Communists and as good as convicted. I may have felt
that way and I, at times, believe I did, but I don't believe I told them
they were Communists simply because they claimed the protection
of the fifth amendment.
Senator McCarthy. I don't think I ever called them Communists;
I have referred to them as fifth amendment Communists. It is an
evidence, you see, of communism when you take the fifth amendment
in a civil court, but, Senator, let me show you the effect of wiiat you
might call lecturing. In this case that I speak of, General Zwicker
had asked me to read over, I think 3 times, 2 or 3 times, a very simple
question. I said to him, "General, a 5-year-old child can understand
that question ; you must answer it."
That might seem like lecturing him, but he then answered it.
I might say that I tried it out on a 6-year-old child last night. I
had little Virginia Thompson, who is a guest in our home — I didn't
try it out; Mr. Williams tried it out h«re — he called her down and he
read that question to her in perhaps simpler language, but in essence
the same and she didn't have to have it reread. She answered instanter.
Well, now, some people might think that is lecturing a general when
you say a 5-year-old child can understand it, but after a general says
you have got to read it over, you have got to read it over, you have
got to react it over, the lecture, if you can call it that, brought the
answer. He didn't ask for it to be read over again.
Now, you might not approve that type of cross-examination. I don't
know.
Pardon me for taking so much of your time.
The Chairman. I asked the question and you had a right to respond.
I expected you to respond.
256 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
I call your attention to a question I asked you before, and that is on
pape 152, at the bottom of that page.
General Z wicker was replying to a long question just before, asked
by you.
Let VIS assume that John Jones is a major in the United States Army. Let us
assume tliat there is sworn testimony to the effect that he is part of tlie Com-
munist conspiracy, lias attended Conmiunist leadership schools. Let us assume
that Maj. John Jones is under oath before a committee and says, "I cannot
tell you the truth about these charges because, if I did, I fear that mi.i^ht tend
to incriminate me." Then let us say that General Smith was responsible for
this man receiving' an honorable discharge, knowing these facts. Do you think
that General Smith should be removed from the military, or do you think he
should be kept on in it?
And then the answer :
General Zwicker. He should be by all means kept if he were acting under
competent orders to separate that man.
Don't you think. Senator, in that situation that probably the general
had one state of facts in mind and you had another? That seems to
be indicated by his answer, and I assume that he might have had also
in mind the letter he had from wlioever he had it from directing him to
release Peress, discharge him.
In other words, getting back to that thing, using that as an illustra-
tion, he may have felt — I don't say he did, but I assume there is some
possibility he may have felt that you had in mind a man who had
orders to do a certain thing, and that was probably the reason for his
response.
At least, it is open to interpretation, don't you think ?
Senator McCarthy. No, Senator ; let me say this, that I had the in-
formation, the officihl report from my investigator that the general
did not feel that way, that he felt it was improper to give this man an
honorable discharge — I thought the general was not telling me the
truth.
You Avill notice after I made this statement to him which I strongly
felt, he changed his position. That is cross-examination. When you
have reason to know that a man is not telling the truth, you try to
induce him to tell the truth. He did change his position after I made
this suggestion to him.
The Chairmax. I think probably you have given me your idea of
how far a Senator can go in investigations under the investigative
authority of the United States Senate which it has under the Consti-
tution ; so that is all the questions I have. Senator.
Are there any other questions ?
Senator Case.
Senator Case. Not at this time.
The Chairman. Senator Ervin.
Senator Ervin, No,
The Chairman. Are there question from the gentlemen on this side?
Senator Stennis. As I understand it, Mr, Chairman, all this cross-
examination is deferred until all the answers are in on all the charges.
The Chairman. That is true for the staff and counsel of the com-
mittee but it is always proper for the Senators if they want to ask
questions. I think Senators have the right to ask all the questions
they want any time they want. It is a Senate investigation and we are
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 257
therefore in the same position as the court would be trying a case,
to break in any time and ask questions of the witness.
Now, you may proceed with your further direct.
Mr. Williams. JNIr. Chairman, the next case to whicli I will address
myself is going to be quite lengthy and I might suggest at this time,
if the Chair is willing, to take it up in the morning.
The Chairman". If there is no objection from the committee, we will
recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 4 :15 p. m., the hearing was recessed until Thursday,
September 9, 1954, at 10 a. m.)
HEAEINGS ON SENATE EESOLUTION 301
thursday, september 9, 1954
United States Senate,
Select Committee to Study Censure Charges Pursuant
To Senate Order on Senate Resolution 301,
Washington^ D. C.
Tlie Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 : 10 a. m., in the
caucus room, 318 Senate Office Building, Senator Arthur V. Watkins
(chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Watkins (chairman), Johnson (vice chairman),
Carlson, Case, Stennis, and Ervin.
Also Present: Senator McCarthy; E. Wallace Chadwick, counsel to
the committee; Guy G. de Furia, assistant counsel to the committee;
John M. Jex, clerk of the committee; John W. Wellman, staflf member;
Frank Ginsburg and Ray R. McGuire, members of Senator Watkins'
staff on loan to the committee; and Edward Bennett Williams, counsel
to Senator McCarthy, with his associates, Agnes A. Neill and Brent
Bozell.
The Chairman. The committee will be in session.
Mr. Williams, you may proceed with your examination.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOSEPH R. McCAETHY
Mr. Williams. Senator McCarthy, at the close of yesterday's session,
Senator Watkins directed some questions at you concerning the subject
of commenting upon a witness' testimony and the manner of handling
an evasive witness. Mr. Justice Black, of the Supreme Court, while he
was chairman of the Senate Investigations Committee, commented
upon this subject. I think it might be helpful. It is only one
paragraph.
The Chairman. Wliat was that? My attention was momentarily
diverted.
INIr. Williams. I ask, Mr. Chairman, because I thought it might be
helpful to the committee, to have this in the record, because it is only
one paragraph, about the comment of Mr. Justice Black, relative to
the manner in which a chairman of a Senate committee should handle
an evasive witness, a subject in which I understood we had an interest
on yesterday.
The Chairman. We are interested in the Senator's own viewpoint.
I think you could submit this as a part of your brief, instead of making
it a part of the testimony.
Mr. Williams. It is not lengthy.
259
260 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The CiiATEMAN, I realize that. It is not the length I am calling
attention to, but it is a matter of examining a man as a witness, regard-
ing his own statement. But I do not think it is proper.
Mr. Williams. I wanted to ask him, Mr. Chairman, if he is in agree-
ment with this, because I think this sums up and expresses his views
on it, as I understand it — a thing which I understood you were inter-
ested in.
The Chairman. Well, what I was interested in here was not Mr.
Justice Black's views at the moment. Of course, later on, in the legal
argument, we should be glad to hear what Mr. Justice Black had to say
about questions of that kind.
Mr. Williams. In other words, you do not want to hear this on
redirect examination ?
The Chairman. I do not want to hear what Mr. Justice Black has
to say
Mr. Williams. No.
The Chairman. But I think we ought to hear what Senator Mc-
Carthy has to say.
Mr. Williams. I intended to ask the Senator whether he agreed
with this as the proper procedure in handling an evasive witness.
The Chairman. It has been called to my attention that it is a lead-
ing question; but I do not object to that, because I am sure counsel is
not intending to lead Senator McCarthy.
Mr. Williams. No, sir, I am not.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. Senator Ervin.
Senator Ervin. In connection with the examination of Senator
McCarthy, I may say, as an old cross-examiner myself, that I am very
much intrigued by something that occurred very early in the cross-
examination of General Zwicker, namely, the statement by Senator
McCarthy, found on page 147.
Senator McCarthy. Will you hold that, until I get the file ? Is it
page 147?
Senator Ervin. Yes — where the Senator made this statement to
General Zwicker :
Don't be coy with me, General.
Now, I rather admired that, in a way. Personally, I would never
have been bold enough to have made that observation on a cross-
examination of anybody in the military service, unless perhaps it were
a WAVE or a WAC, and I then would have been bold enough to do it
only under romantic circumstances, where I was surrounded with soft
music, moonlight, and roses; and I am satisfied I never would have
been bold enough to give that admonition to either a general or a top
sergeant. But I merely want to ask the Senator whether he considered
that a proper method of cross-examining a general — that is. General
Zwicker.
Senator McCarthy. I did, because he had been trying to be coy —
coy and evasive. If you will note the previous question. Senator
Ervin, I said :
Then, General, you knew, did you not. that he appeared before the committee
and refused, on the grounds of the fifth amendment, to tell about all of his
Communist activities? You knew that, did you not?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 261
His answer was not "Yes" or "No." His answer was :
I knew everything that was in the press.
And I said :
Don't be coy with me, General.
It was the same type of evasiveness that I encountered all through
my cross-examination of General Zwicker.
Senator ER^^N. Now, this is a part of the cross-examination, only.
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Ervin. The Senator testified yesterday that General
Zwicker did not cooperate in the cross-examination. Now, I should
like to ask the Senator if he thinks that this remark, asking or sug-
gesting to the general that he not be coy, was something which he
thought was calculated to encourage the general to cooperate with
him in the cross-examination.
Senator McCarthy. When you have an antagonistic witness and he
refuses to answer a question, and gives you an evasive answer, you
might use this language, Senator Ervin; but I asked him the simple
question. I said:
Then, General, you knew, did yon not, that he appeared before the committee
and refused, on the grounds of the fifth amendment, to tell about all of his
Communist activities? You knew that, did you not?
I was trying to find out whether he knew that ; and his answer was
the usual evasive answer. He said :
I knew everything that was in the press.
I said :
Now, don't be coy with me. General.
That was my system of cross-examination. You might use different
language, Senator Ervin, when you have an evasive answer. That
was my system of trying to pull teeth. I finally pulled some of them
and got some of the information.
Senator ER^^N■. That is all.
The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. Williams.
Senator McCarthy. What is our question, Mr. Williams?
The Chairman. I think the Chair had ruled that the excerpt from
Mr. Justice Black's statement would not be inserted as part of the
redirect examination because that is a matter of legal argument which,
of course, I think we would be very glad to have before the committee
but I don't think it would be proper to read it in. We would like the
Senator to give his own views ; that is what we are interested in, the
testimony of the Senator himself.
Mr. Williams. Since the Chair has ruled, I will proceed imme-
diately to charge involving solicitation of information on wrongdoing
in the executive department by Senator McCarthy.
Senator, there was read into the record last week certain statements
that you were alleged to have made during the Army-McCarthy hear-
ing. I want to address your attention to a couple of these this morn-
ing and ask you about them.
Did you say, on May 27, 1954 :
Mr. Chairman, in view of Senator McClellan's statements and his request,
I would like to make it clear that I think that the oath which every person in
this Government takes to protect and defend this country against all enemies,
262 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
foreign and domestic, that that oath towers far above any Presidential secrecy
directive.
Did you say that, sir ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
The Chairman. Will yon kindly give us the page numbers as you
are calling his attention to these matters?
Mr. Williams. Page 3915.
The Chairman, Of the hearing record in the Army-McCarthy
controversy ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Did you say this on May 27, 1954, at page 3918 :
Again I want to compliment the individuals who have placed their oaths to
defend the country against enemies, and certainly Communists are enemies, above
and beyond any Presidential directive.
Did you say that, sir ?
Senator McCartpit. Yes.
Mr. Williams. On the following page, as reported on page 4260
of the Army-McCarthy hearings, did you say :
As far as I am concerned, I would like to notify those 2 million Federal
employees that I feel that it is their duty to give us any information which they
have about graft, corruption, communism, treason, and that there is no loyalty
to a superior officer which can tower above and beyond their loyalty to their
country.
Did you say that, sir ?
Senator McCarthy. I did, and may I call your attention, Mr. Wil-
liams, to the fact that I was not asking for general classified informa-
tion. I was only asking for evidence of wrongdoing.
I was asking these people to conform with the criminal code which
requires they give that evidence.
Mr. Williams. Did you say. Senator McCarthy, on June 16, 1954,
during these same hearings — and I refer now to page 7014, addressing
a remark to Senator McClellan :
Senator, may I make it very clear, so that there is no question about it, regard-
less of who tries to sustain me, or vice versa, while I am chairman of the com-
mittee, I will receive all the information I can get about wrongdoing in the
executive branch. I will give that information to the American people.
Senator McCarthy. As I recall, that is a correct quotation.
Mr. Williams. On that same day, making reference to a statement
made by Senator Dirksen, did you say :
Jlay I say. Senator Dirksen, I think you have raised and covered the point
so well it doesn't require any answer of any kind. I personally feel that the
oath which every individual takes to defend this country against all enemies,
foreign or domestic, places upon him the heavy responsibility to bring to the
Congi-ess any information of wrongdoing where the matter is not being taken
care of properly by his superiors.
Senator McCarthy. Correct.
Mr. Williams. On that same day, reported at page 7022 of these
hearings, did you say :
I am an authorized person to receive information in regard to any wrong-
doing in the executive branch. When you say "classified documents," Mr.
Symington, certainly, I am not authorized to receive anything which would
divulge the names of. we will say, informants of Army Intelligence, anything
which would in any way compi-omise their investigative technique, and that sort
of thing, but as chairman of this watchdog committee, I think that is what you
call it, I feel I am dutybound to receive any information about wrongdoing.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 263
Did you say that, Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. As I recall, I did, and I would repeat it.
Mr. Williams. Did you say on that same day, speaking to Senator
McClellan at page 7028 of these hearings, and I quote :
Senator, could we do this, and I don't want to pursue this any further because
we are all trying to end up these hearings, can we agree that if anyone in
Government knows of any wrongdoing, whether it is theft, whether it is treason,
whether it is Communist inhltration, that if they come to you or if they come
to me, that we will consider that they are doing their duty and that they are
not guilty of any crime because the law says they have the right and the duty
to do it? They take an oath of office to protect this Nation. If we could agree
on that. Senator
then you are broken off. Did you say that, sir ?
Senator McCarthy. I did.
May I say, Mr. Williams, that I recognize these quotations, and I
assume that they are verbatim quotes. They certainly expressed my
feelings, then; they express my feelings now.
Mr. Williams. Now, Senator, at this time, I would like to present
the members of the committee and counsel with our legal position on
this matter which we shall develop throughout the morning in the form
of a brief.
I think that will help the committee in following the course of the
testimony so that you will have certain of these matters before you.
The Chairman. Did you desire to present the outline of it orally ?
Mr. Williams. I think we can cover it here, sir, during the testi-
mony. I thinly: that is the most effective way for the committee to fol-
low it because this states Senator McCarthy's position on this matter,
which is the defense of this case.
Now, in the charges that have been filed against you. Senator Mc-
Carthy, in the second category, the Fulbright amendment states, in
part, that you invited and urged employees of the Government to
violate their oath of office.
The Morse amendment states, in part, that you invited and incited
employees to violate their oaths of office.
And the Flanders amendment states, in part, that you incited em-
ployees to violate their oaths of office.
Now, I would ask you, Senator, if you know what the oath of office
is that a Federal employee takes upon entering the service of his
country.
Senator McCarthy. First, let me say that the charge that I invited
them to violate their oaths of office is completely false. It has no basis
in fact whatsoever.
They are being invited to conform to their oaths of office and to
conform to the Criminal Code.
I thought they made the oaths :
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true
faith and allegiaHce to the same, that I take this obligation freely without any
mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and tiiat I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.
And may I say, Mr. Williams, when I asked Federal employees to
give the chairman of the "watchdog committee," the committee set up
by the Reorganization Act, to disclose wrongdoing in the Government,
when I invited them to give the chairman of that committee evidence of
264 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
wrongdoing, I am inviting tlieni not to violate tlieir oath of office but
to conform to their oath of office.
Also, ma_y I say, Mr. Williams, there is a Federal law which makes
it a crime to
Mr. Williams. I will come to that in just a moment. Senator.
Senator McCarthy. Pardon me.
Mr, Williams. I am interested now in the question of whether there
was an invitation to Federal employees to violate their oaths of office
which they take on entering the service.
Senator McCarthy. The answer to that is no.
Mr. WiLiAMS. Now, in the charges as specified by Senators Fiil-
bright, Morse, and Flanders, in addition to the allegation that you
urged employees to violate their others of office, there is the companion
allegation, and I shall I'ef er to these charges themselves, that you urged
them to violate the law, as Senator Fulbright put it; and as Senator
Morse put it, openlj^ invited and incited employees to violate the law;
and as Senator Flanders put it, to violate their oaths. Senator Fland-
ers made no reference to a violation of the law.
But there are two references ; one by Senator Fulbright and one by
Senator IN'Iorse in which you are charged with urging employees to
violate the law.
Now, Senator, are you familiar, sir, with the United States Code,
title V, section 652 (d) and its provisions, and were you familiar with
it at the time you made the statements that I have quoted to you earlier
this morning?
Senator McCarthy. I am and I was.
Mr. Williams. What is that provision to which I have just referred ?
Senator McCarthy. May I read it to you, Mr. Williams ? It reads :
The right of persons employed in the civil service of the United States, either
individually or collectively, to petition Congress or any Member tliereof, or
to furnisli information to either House of Congress, or to any committee or
Member thereof, shall not be denied or interfered with.
May I say that as I recall, this law was introduced by my predecessor
Bob La Follette, Sr., and passed, I believe in 1912, reenacted in 1948
after the Truman secrecy order.
Mr. Williams. The fact is, is it not, Senator, that Congress re-
enacted this statute 4 months after the secrecy directive of President
Truman ?
Senator McCarthy. I wouldn't know the length of time, but I un-
derstand it was reenacted after Truman's secrecy order, which cer-
tainly would negate his order.
Mr. Williams. In what respect?
Senator McCarthy. Well, that there is nothing in the courts or
nothing in statute law to give the President the power to permit em-
ployees to give information on wrongdoing or graft, corruption, or
treason to Congress.
The Chairman. Mr. Williams, I realize it is difficult for you to
present the views of Senator McCarthy without getting into argu-
ment. The witness should testify to the facts, which I hope will be
rather liberal, with the approval of the committee, as long as you do
not get off into a complete argument and nothing else.
If there are various items in it as a matter of aiding the committee,
we will allow you to go on, but I want to call attention to the fact that
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 265
I do not think it is quite within the field of testimony. It is hirgely an
argument. But you may proceed.
Mr. Williams. I might say, Senator, there is no other way in which
to put a defense in against this charge. Senator McCarthy is charged
with being in a wrong position on the law, and urging that position
on others. We do not take the position, and we are not here to deny
the position that was taken, and we can show what the law is, in our
opinion, and there is no other way to defend this than in this manner.
The Chairman. I think it could be defended by argument by his
lawyer. At the present time he is sworn to testify, and largely it
would be on factual matters.
I want to call it to your attention that we do not necessarily agree
that it is the proper kind of testimony, but since we will have to listen
to the argument sometime or other, we might as well have that mixed
in with the facts to which he testifies. So you might as well proceed.
Senator McCarthy. I would say I think it is necessary to have the
committee know what my interpretation of the law was when I made
these statements with respect to wrongdoing.
Mr. Williams. Now, this statute to which we have just made refer-
ence sets out, as you understand it, I take it, the right of employees to
give information to members of the legislative branch regarding the
executive branch.
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Mr. Williams. As I understand your testimony, Senator, your
solicitation is for information, so that we will have your position
clear, and that was confined to a solicitation of information on graft,
corruption, communism, wrongdoing in the executive; is that correct?
Senator McCarthy. I confined this information with regard to il-
legal activities on the part of Federal employees. It did not include
general classified material.
In other words, I was not asking them for atomic bomb secrets or
any of our military secrets. I was merely asking for information of
illegal activities and I may say, Mr. Williams, that as chairman of the
Government Operations Committee and the Investigations Committee,
if I did not try to get that information, then I should be subject to
censure.
Mr. Williams. Now, in addition to the right of employees to
give information to Members of Congress as spelled out in this and
other statutes to which we shall refer, was it your conception, Senator,
and is it now, that there is a duty on their part to give such infor-
mation ?
Senator McCarthy. The law so provides.
Mr. Williams. What law do you have reference to ?
Senator McCarthy. Section 4 of the United States Code. May I
quote that to you, Mr. Williams ?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Senator McCarthy. It states :
Whoevei", having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony, cognizable
by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make
known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority
under the United States, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not
more than three years, or both.
I was advising them to conform to the Criminal Code.
266 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. Now this statute, Senator, says tliat it is the duty
of citizens to bring forward this information and make it known
to some judge or other person in civil or military authority. Did you
conceive yourself to be, and do you, sir, one within the category "civil
authority" ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, the Supreme Court has so held.
Mr. Williams. Would you tell the committee in what case that
was and we will not go into the details of it ?
Senator McCarthy. In the case of Lamar v. U. S. (241 U. S. 102),
in which it was held that a Senator was a person in "civil authority".
I could read the code but I think the Senators all have the code
before them, on page 4 of the brief which we have submitted, and
I doubt whether it is necessary to burden them with reading the quota-
tion.
Mr. Williams. Now, in that case the Supreme Court was constru-
ing a statute comparable to the one about which we are talking?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Williams. So that because of title XVIII, section 4, and the
case of Lamar against the United States, Supreme Court case, you
felt and you feel that where there is evidence of wrongful conduct,
criminal conduct, it is the duty of persons in the executive to come
forward to someone within the scope of his statute, the judge, or some-
one else in civil or military autliority ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Williams, I feel very strongly that if
someone in the executive knows of wrongdoing, of a crime being com-
mitted, and they do not bring it to someone who will act on it, they
are almost equally guilty.
May I go further and say it would be impossible for me as chair-
man of the investigating committee, set up under the Reorganiza-
tion Act, to do my work, it would be impossible to dig out and expose
wrongdoing unless loyal Federal em])loyees came forward — and let
me emphasize again I am not asking for general classified informa-
tion ; I am merely asking for evidence of wrongdoing.
I maintain that you cannot hide wrongdoing, that the head of a
department cannot hide wrongdoing by using a rubber stamp, stamp-
ing "Confidential,*' "Secret," or "Top Secret"^ — I don't care what
classification they stamp upon it — as long as it is evidence of wrong-
doing.
Mr. Williams. Now, at the time that you urged Federal employees
to come forward with information on graft, corruption, communism,
or treason, you were then serving as chairman of the Government
Operations Committee; were you not?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Williams. And you were serving as chairman of the sub-
sidiary committee, the Committee on Permanent Investigations?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Mr. Williams. Over and above your status as a Senator, did you,
by virtue of those assignments, have a more particular status in rela-
tion to this information?
Senator McCarthy. A status and a duty, very important duty, Mr.
Williams, one that was assigned to me by the Senate unanimously.
Mr. Williams. Now% we have shown what the right of employees
is to go to Members of Congress and we have shown the scope of their
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 267
duty in that respect to take evidence of wrongdoing to someone in
authority.
Did the Legislative Reorganization Act of 19-i6 impose a particular
duty upon you and members of your committee^
Senator McCarthy. It did, and you will find that set forth on page
6 of a compilation of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.
Mr. Williams. Yon are reading from, I take it, section 102-G?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, and may I just read very briefly.
One of the duties of our committee is "studying the operation of
Government activities at all levels, with a view to determining its
economy and efficiency," and, obviously, if security officers are allow-
ing Communists to hold important positions, they are not efficient.
Mv. Williams. Now, Senator, when you took the position which
you did, in fact, take, and which Mr. Chadwick has offered evidence
on and which we have corroborated here this morning, was that a new
position in the history of the Senate? Was it an unprecedented posi-
tion by the chairman of a Senate committee?
Senator McCarthy. No. It is not new or unprecedented. In fact,
the Vice President took a position much stronger than the one I took.
Mr. WiLiJAMS. Before we get to that, I want to ask you in particu-
lar about the chairman of the conniiittee which was in all respects
identical with the committee of which you are chairman now, back in
1934, Senator Hugo Black, chairman of the Government Investiga-
tions Committee then.
I want to ask you what position he took in the munitions investi-
gation of that year.
Senator McCarthy. I would like to quote him, if I may, Mr. Wil-
liams. He said:
In the munitions investigation something new was tried. A munitions manu-
facturer said its correspondence in many cases referred to Government muni-
tions business and that this was confidential to the Government. It produced
its papers under com[iulsion, but all over every document was "Contidential by
Order of the War Department." Needless to say, the committee paid no attention
to this stamp.
I might say that because Hugo Black paid no attention to that
phony stamp he exposed much wrongdoing and did a great job for
the country at that time.
Mr. Williams. That was in 1934?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Williams. Now, I want to ask ^ou, sir, about the chairman of
another committee. I want to ask you about Senator John Williams,,
of Delaware, who exposed fraud and corruption in the Bureau of
Internal Revenue. I ask you whetlier or not he has expressed him-
self on this very subject
The Chairman. Just a moment, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Which is before this committee.
The Chairman. Before he answers, I think that is getting out of
the line of legal argument.
Mr, Williams. I think, Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. That would be hearsay.
Mr. Williams. I feel most strongly on this, sir. There is a mo-
tion pending in this Senate, before this committee, to censure Sen-
ator McCarthy for making certain statements.
.52461 — 54 18
268 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Now, certainly we should be able to show that other men who sit
in the United States Senate today, who have sat there before, have
taken the identical position, to show that the position he has taken
is not unprecedented and that it is an expression of a solid constitu-
tional position, and that is the only way we can put our defense in,
sir.
The Chairman. I think you are probably belaboring the point a
little too much for the simple reason we are not here now investigating
Senator Williams or Senator Williams' views.
We are willing to listen to the law on this matter. The commit-
tee knows, of course, a widespread discussion of this has been a con-
troversy for many years, as to what Congress should get and what
the executive department is willing to give.
Let's confine it not to the matters other Senators have done, because
we are not investigating those charges.
We could go off into the bypaths here for hours and days if you
wanted to go into all of these things that Senators have done in the
past.
Now, there were no charges filed ; no controversy arose with respect
to that particular thing. \'\niether it was objected to or not, we don't
know; but, at any rate, we are getting off into a side field.
I think you are perfectly in order, in accordance with the ruling
made a moment ago, to go along the line of the law on this question,
but just because somebody else did some of these things is no indica-
tion it was always right.
Mr. WiLLiiN.Ms. Mr. Chairman, may I say, sir, first of all, we are
going to show that Senator McCarthy knew of these things, that
his position was in all respects parallel with the expressions of opinion
of these Senators and that, therefore, when he expressed his opinion,
he was expressing an opinion which he believed represented the views
and opinions of other chairmen of other committees, including his
own.
I may say to you, Senator, we listened for 3 days when the evi-
dence went in on these charges. Now, we have had only 1 day.
The Chairman. We are not going to cut you down on time.
Mr. Williams. We are not trying to take time, but I think it is
imperative that we have an opportunity to be heard on these charges
and a ruling of this kind forecloses a fair opportunity to be heard, Mr.
Chairman, and I respectfully urge you to allow us to go forward and
show these precedents; otherwise, we just can't put this defense in.
Mr. Chairman, I tried to make legal argument the first day, and
was not permitted to do it.
The Chairman. You have been given the right to file a brief, and
we also told you before we concluded this hearing that you could make
an oral argument.
Now, you are having a witness testify and he is attempting to
testify as to what Senator Williams did, and then you might go
on with Senator Jones and Senator Brown and Senator Smith, and
go on down the line for I don't know how many years back, clear
to the beginning of the history of the Senate.
We think that is not quite a proper subject for testimony.
This committee is made up of men who are in the Senate. We have
to take judicial notice of what Senator Williams and all these others
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 269
have done. We do take judicial notice of the fact that there has been
a Congress and some of this information has come in that way.
So, I do not see how you could claim this to be a part of the testi-
mony on Senator McCarthy.
Mr. Williams. I do claim it is part of the testimony, Mr. Chair-
man, and I think it is the most relevant part of the testimony with
respect to this charge because the proposition that is before this
committee is whether or not Senator McCarthy did wrong; whether
he did a willful and intentional wrong in his statements that have
been quoted here this morning.
Now, certainly, we are entitled to show that he was acting on
precedent, long-established precedent, and that he believed that what
he said was the law and that he had reason to believe that, as a result
of the precedents of the Senate.
The Chairman. You can see, can't you, that if we start on individ-
ual Senators' activities and records, we would have to bring them
in to see whether they did get any of this type of information from
executive departments.
We are going to side issues that I don't think will be helpful to
the committee because the matters with respect to what Senators have
done, at least they brought matters to the attention of the Senate,
is well known to the Senate. It is well known to this committee. We
take judicial notice of that. But how they get that information is
not so well known, and I don't know that Senator McCarthy can
testify personally to how they get it.
Mr. WiLLL^MS. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCarthy is being tried
for violating the rules of the Senate. Now, all I am trying to show
is what the practice of the Senate was and I cannot conceive of the
fact that we should be stopped on this kind of a showing.
The Chairman. I think it is improper testimony to go into these
matters, what other Senators have done. There has been no question
raised on those Senators.
Mr. Williams. I know that, and that is the heart of our defense.
The Chairman. That is all right. We are not investigating them.
We cannot go into all these bypaths and all these diversions.
Mr. Williams. This is not a diversion, sir. This goes to the very
heart of this defense, and I urge you to listen to this testimony, and
if you won't listen to it in the form of testimony, then I ask for the
risrht to be heard in argument on this. .
Tlie Chairman. I have made my ruling. We will allow you to
make an argument, yes, but I don't think this is proper testimony.
It is hearsav. I think the Senator well knows I am willing to let
him go ahead on the law, but when we get into individual Senators'
conduct, that is another matter entirely because we will have to find
out if you are going to use that as a precedent, how they got that
information. There isn't anything in the record before us that would
indicate they got any of their material illegally or by solicitation or
involved anybody giving out classified information. I say you are
getting out into a lot of diversions. We don't intend to do that.
Now, I don't think you are aiding to cite the other precedents of
what other Senators have done over the years, whether they are right
or wrong in what they did; whether they have been challenged or
not is, I think, somewhat beside the point.
270 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. I want to say to you, Senator, that this ruling from
the Chair — and I say this most respectfully to the Chair — this ruling
effectively prevents us from putting in a defense to this case because
I have been stopped from showing what was in Senator McCarthy's
mind when he made these statements, and that is part of the charge
here, that he was acting in a manner that was willfully wrong, that
was in the teeth of precedent and in the teeth of the law when he made
this charge, and now I have been stopped from showing what was in
his mind.
The Chairman. You can quarrel with the decision if 3^ou want to,
but we are not going to take the time to quarrel with you. That is
the ruling. I call your attention, also, that in this memo you sub-
mitted to us, what you are saying about what Senator Williams said
about it was not said in the Senate at all but was said in an interview
Avith the United States News and World Report.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I have 30 seconds?
The Chairman. This committee — let me make myself clear on this
matter — this committee has been given a special job to do; it had to set
up special rules. Now, when you get into this subject, Mr. Williams,,
all of these matters you are talking about can be reviewed before the
Senate itself, for the simple reason that you don't have to be confined
to material or relevant matter. You can talk to anything you want to
talk to when you have the floor as long as you don't violate the rules,,
and there is no rule against immaterial or irrelevant matter. But we
have had to set up certain rules here, and we don't intend to go into this
question of finding out what each Senator has done in his individual
capacity. The official actions of the Senate are another matter ; so I
think the ruling is clear, and I will stand on it.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I have 30 seconds?
The Chairman. We have a rule. Senator. I called it to your at-
tention the other day, that only you or your counsel might argue
the matters, not both of you. Your counsel has made your
Senator McCarthy. May I beg your indulgence, because that is
awfully important to us.
The Chairman. I will give you the 30 seconds, even if it is in viola-
tion of the rule.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I am charged with violating
the rules and the precedents of the Senate. I think it is extremely im-
portant for me to show what the precedent has been, and show that I
was entitled to rely upon what eminent Senators, chairmen of com-
mittees, had urged Government employees to do, that there was noth-
ing different in what I did from what the other chairmen of com-
mittees did, not different from what the Vice President did, and in
fact, the Vice President went much further than I did. I <;hink it is
important for this committee to know whether or not I was establish-
ing a new practice, and I do wish the Chair would consult with the
members of the committee before he rules on this extremely impoi-taut
subject, because I feel, Mr. Chairman, I feel strongly, that unless T
can show that I knew what the precedent was, that I knew it had never
been questioned. I knew it had been relied upon by the Senate, ap-
proved by the Senate, that I was following that approved practice :
unless I can do that, I think I am precluded from submitting the
defense, and I wish the Chair would, because this is so all-important
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 271
to me, I wish the Chair would just go in a huddle with the other
Senators so we will know this is a decision of the Senate as a whole.
I have great respect for the Chair. I know he is trying to rule fairly.
I know he is trying to expedite these hearings, but I hope he doesn't
expedite them at the expense of our being able to present a defense.
The Chairman. As stated in the beginning of this matter, this
hearing, the Chair did state that if there were any rulings made by
the Chair that were questionable, the committee in executive session
would consider those matters and if the Chair was in error, he would
reverse the ruling.
Now, I have not had an opportunity, and I don't want to have an
executive session right at this moment, but I have permitted you — if
you will go back in the record, you have been permitted to go along
with the chairmen of the committees and the Vice President, but
when you get over to Senator Williams who was never a chairman of
a committee and is not now the chairman of a committee, it is another
matter, and getting out into the individual conduct of various Senators.
We could go on for months here.
Mr. Williams. We are not going on for months.
The Chairman. But if I open that door and permit that type of
testimony, we could be going on and on, and there is some question, the
same question would com.e back as to whether they had been doing the
right thing or not. I want to make the position clear that I am think-
ing about: The members of this committee recognize, just as you do,
and Senator McCarthy does, that there has been a controversy over
the years ; that is one of the things that will have to be settled eventually
by the Senate itself.
We are trying to take as much testimony that would throw light on
those matters as we can within the limited time that we have. You
are in the field almost entirelj^ of argument — Senators so-and-so and
so-and-so did this — and you might say that to get all the truth, all the
facts connected w^ith it with respect to Senator Williams, we would
have to call in Senator Williams. Senator Williams, did you, or did
you not, get information from sources that might be objectionable or
within the field of the Executive?
We would have to go into whether or not he did what Senator
McCarthy claims he did. Senator McCarthy obviously cannot testify
as to what Senator Williams did and what he said in an interview is
■only hearsay evidence. That is the hearsay ruling. And I have per-
mitted you to go on with an argument here and I have not objected to
where you have called the attention of the committee to the action of
the chairmen of committees. Going on into the field of individual
Senators is quite a diffei^ent thing, I think, at least in degree.
You cannot try all these matters, to find out whether each individual
Senator did the same thing that Senator McCarthy thinks he did, and
something that he has followed.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman — —
The Chairman. Senator Case.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, I think it is obvious that, with the
number of Senators that there have been and the number of points
that you have taken, it would be possible to find some Senator who had
expressed himself in various ways on practically every subject. I
think the committee could be interested in any actual precedent of
272 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
action by the Senate on the tiling, I do not regard the statement of a
Senator as a precedent. It would be the adoption of a resolution by
the Senate or some foi-mal ruling by the Senate in some respect. If
the witness has any actual precedents of the Senate, any decisions in
the matter, I think those would be helpful to the committee.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, in light of the ruling here, I should
like to request a 10-minute recess, to permit me to confer with Senator
McCarthy.
The Chairman. All right. We will take a 10-minute recess. In
the meantime, the committee will endeavor to confer here — if they will
leave us alone — at the table.
(Whereupon, at 11:02 a. m., a 21-minute recess was taken.)
The Chairman. The committee will resume sessions.
The committee met in a brief executive session and they have unani-
mously upheld the decision of the Chair.
I may say now, so that there will not be any misunderstanding of
it, that the Chair attempted to be as liberal under the rules adopted
for this proceeding as he felt he could be, and still keep to the main
purpose of this investigation.
The Chair permitted the argmnent on law to follow in connection
with the testimony. I think that would ]:)robably aid the committee.
Now, we get into the field of individual Senatoi-s' activities and usq
that as an argument for precedence. The Chair had permitted the
statement of Justice Black and the statement was made that was sup-
posed to have been made by Vice President Nixon. I did not catch it
at the time, but I believe it was a statement made by him at the time
he w^as a Member of the House of Representatives rather than while
he was Vice President.
The Chair and the committee will permit precedents, actions of the
Senate, or any official group within the Senate. It will take judicial
notice of those activities, and I have gone so far as to permit the state-
ment of chairmen of various committees of the Senate made in con-
nection with their official activities on any given matter, and that will
be permitted now, but as we see it it would be an endless job to permit
the consideration of the actions of individual Senators because we
know as a matter of experience that you can find some precedent for
almost anything under the sun when it comes to statements and activi-
ties of Senators and Congressmen.
They have talked on many subjects, and you will find speeches on
both sides of the question as to whether or not it is proper to solicit
the contributions or the statements from people in the executive de-
partment and, also, you will find statements probably on both sides
as to whether the chairman of a committee would have the right to
certain information, whether he was authorized as a person to have
that right.
We have 96 Senators, and sometimes we have 9(\ different views, and
so we feel that that is going too far into what individual Senators have
done. But within limitations that I have mentioned, I will allow you
to proceed.
Sir. Williams. ]\Ir. Chairman, I am dee]:»ly sorry that the committee
has taken this view of our evidence. I think candor dictates that I
say to you, sir, that I am shocked at this ruling. I must also say
that—
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 273
The Chairman. We have made tlie ruling. Of course, if you want
to criticize the committee, why
Mr. Williams. I certainly have no desire in any way to criticize
the members of this conunittee, but I do say again to you, sir, candor
dictates that I say that I am shocked by the ruling.
The Chairman. The record will show your statement.
INIr. Williams. I must also say to you that the ruling of the Chair
effectively prevents us from introducing the evidence which we be-
lieve constitutes the very heart and soul of our defense on the charges
with respect to solicitation, on the charges with respect to the FBI
letter.
I must say to you, Mr. Chairman, why that is.
The Chairman. Do you want to reargue it ?
]Mr. Williams. No, sir, I do not want to reargue it, but I want to
tell you, sir, wliy we cannot go forward with our defense to these
charges.
Senator McCarthy is being charged with wrongful conduct, conduct
that is against the precedents of the Senate, that he has done some-
thing that other Senators have not done.
We were prepared to show, and we have not shown in this brief
that we submitted, and I say it is a most ineffective instrument inso-
far as presenting the sole side of our case, because we cannot present
Senator McCarthy's mind in the form of a brief. What we had ex-
pected to show was that the chief policy-making Members of the Sen-
ate had taken the exact position, the Vice President of the United
States, the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, you, your-
self. Senator Watkins, have taken the exact position that was taken
here, and unless we can show that the leaders of the Senate, the lead^
ers of the Senate have taken
The Chairman. You are not referring to me as a leader of the
Senate, I hope.
Mr. Williams, Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman,
The Chairman. I disclaim any such responsibility. However, I
thank you for the compliment.
]Mr. Williams. But unless we can show that the leaders of the Sen-
ate have taken precisely the same position time and time again and
that Senator INIcCarthy knew this, which he did, and that he was act-
ing in complete compliance with Senate precedent, which he was
The Chairman. Well, you can show that, and Senate precedent
is shown by the official actions of the Senate or its committees. You
cannot go around and call the roll of all the Senators.
It seems to me the precedent is very clear. In a courtroom, if a
defendant sought to prove in a case in which he probably is charged
with stealing a pig that somebody else, one of his other neighbors
stole a cow or a horse, that would be incompetent hearsay, and would
have nothing- to do with the issue in the matter.
Mr. Williams. May I ask your indulgence this far, ]Mr. Chairman.
I realize that the Chair has ruled, and I am not asking the Chair or
the committee to reopen this thing at all.
The Chairman. Well, then, vour remarks, if von are not asking
that, are nnmaterial at this time.
Mr. Williams. I think they are not, sir, because I want to lay in
this record our position.
274 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The CiiAiKMAisr. Just a moment. Let us do it in an orderly way.
If yon are not goino- to reargue this thing, I do not know what is
before this committee at this time. We made the ruling, and you
are not asking to reargue it, and I think your remarks would be out
of place at this time.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, it may be that the full Senate will
disagree with the ruling of this committee.
The Chairman. That is perfectly possible they will do so.
Mr. Williams. And unless I can state, sir, why we cannot put our
defense in, then there is nothing in this record on this subject.
The Chairman. You have already said so.
Mr. Williams. I have not completed my remarks, sir. You
stopped me before I had finished.
I asked simply for the right to state for this record why we cannot
go forward at this time. May I have that right, sir?
The Chairman. Keep within the rules established for this hear-
ing, and you may proceed. If you want to state a position why you
cannot go forward with your defense
Mr. Williams. We cannot on the second count, which is the solici-
tation count, because our whole defense turns around the fact that
this has been the unbroken precedent of the Senate for many years,
as illustrated by the expressions of those men Avho have sat in the
Senate.
We cannot go forward with regard to our defense on the FBI letter,
because one of the most important parts of our case was a showing
of what action Congress had taken in an almost identical situation
in 1948.
The Chairman. You mean the Congress itself?
Do not be misleading.
If the Congress took that action, the ruling is that you can go
ahead and show it.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I am not being misleading.
The Chairman. You say that the Congress itself did it. If they
did that, Mr. Williams, you can put that into the record.
I do not want the position of the committee to be misrepresented,
even inadvertently.
Mr. Williams. I wonder if I may
The Chairman. You may proceed, but I am going to stop you if
I think you are misrepresenting the position of the committee.
Mr. Williams. We were prepared to show that in 1948, April 22,
Vice President Nixon, then Congressman Nixon, spoke about a letter,
an FBI letter, that he, as a member of the House Un-American Activ-
ities Committee, had knowledge of, which had been received and which
was not the full context of the letter, an FBI letter on the security of
one of the projects in which security regulations applied, a letter relat-
ing to one Dr. Condon.
We are prepared to show that letter was received, that it was intro-
duced into a record of the House of Representatives, namely, a report
of the House Un-American Activities Committee, and that thereafter,
when the charge was made that that letter was not the full and com-
plete text of tile FBI letter, Congressman Nixon asked the House to
secure that letter from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and when
the argument was made that that was in the teeth of the secrecy order
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 275
of President Truman, Mr. Nixon made a very vigorous statement on
the floor of the House that that secrecy order was unconstitutional.
I say, sir, that that becomes very important as one of the precedents
which we wanted to call to the attention of the committee.
The Chairman. AVas there an action of the House on that matter
that was brought before it by Mr. Nixon?
Mr. Williams. There was no action of the House, Mr. Chairman, on
Mr. Nixon's expression that the secrecy directives w^ere unconstitu-
tional ; but the House of Representatives, by a unanimous vote, passed
a resolution asking for the letter from the FBI on which the charge
centered, the charge having been that the House committee had gotten
the letter through illegal channels.
The Chairman. All right. You can bring in legal action of the
House on that matter as a precedent. However, it doesn't control the
Senate, as you know ; but at tlie same time w^e will take it for whatever
its weight is, whatever weight it has in connection with this matter
here; but just to take the speech of Mr. Nixon will not be enough.
We don't feel the speech of Mr. Nixon on that matter is relevant
testimony here in this case. It is completely hearsay.
Mr. Williams. I understand that, sir.
The Chairman. But we will take judicial notice of the actions of the
House and the Senate and of its component parts, the committees.
Mr. Williams. I understand.
The Chairman. And I have allowed you to go as far as to take the
statements of the chairmen acting in accordance with their official posi-
tions as chairmen.
It seems to me that is enough,
Mr. Williams. I understand the ruling of the Chair is we may not
offer in evidence here what other Senators and other Congressmen
have said on this subject
The Chairman. That is right.
Mr. Williams. For which Senator McCarthy is being censured. We
may not do that.
The Chairman. That is right, because they are not under charges
here.
We are not going to investigate the remarks of every fellow, every
Member of the Senate and the House, pro and con, on these various
matters.
We take judicial notice of the fact there is -hardly anything that
comes before either the House or the Senate that you don't have very
strong views on by proponents and opponents.
Mr. Williams. Our jDOSition, JNIr. Chairman, is that Senator Mc-
Carthy, as a member of the Senate, knew of the positions that had
theretofore been taken. There had never been any effort by anyone
to censure any of those men for the positions they took and expressed
on and off the floor of the Senate on this very subject, many times in
much stronger language than Senator McCarthy, many times holding
that the directives were not constitutional and that tlie whole classi-
fication system was unconstitutional ; and I am referring now to the
chairman of the Republican policy committee, who took that same
position.
Now, we think we should be able to show that as part of our de-
fense, because if Senator McCarthy knew of these precedents and
he was simply following what the leadership of the Senate had done,
276 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
certain!}' no one would argue that he sliould be censured, if the state-
ment I made be true, and we ask the right to show that it is true, but
your ruling has precluded that and, therefore, we can't go forward
with our defense on the second or third count of these charges.
The Chairman. You are then ready for cross-examination on what
has been presented ?
Mr. Williams. Well, you can't cross-examine nothing, I guess, Mr.
Chairman. We haven't been able to offer anything but a couple of
statutes.
The Chairman. Oh, we have had the testimony with respect to
General ZwicJcer and the general statements made. We have been
here now for a long time.
Mr. Williams. Apparently you misunderstood me, Senator. I
did not say at any time we were not going to present evidence on
charges that had no bearing to your ruling. We are not taking an
arbitrary position such as that.
The Chairman. I am glad you clarified that because you left it
somewhat in doubt.
Mr. Williams. I don't tliink it was in doubt, sir. I said with re-
spect to the second and third category charges.
The Chairman. I accept that explanation, but I will say now on
the testimony already given, if you are going to try to go any further,
in view of the committee's ruling, all that has been presented up to
this point by Senator McCarthy in his testimony will be open to cross-
examination.
Mr. Williams. We do not decline to go further. We can't go fur-
ther, sir.
We want to go further, but we cannot go furthei', in the light of
your ruling.
The Chairman. Of course, if we rule that certain evidence is not
admissible, you cannot bring it in; and if that is your case, we have
ruled you cannot bring in individual views and statements and ac-
tivities of individual Senators or Congressmen.
]Mr. WiLLiA^Nis. Now, Mr. Chairman, we had expected
The Chairman. Now, you may proceed, then, with your next cate-
gory. I thinl: we have argued this enough. You have made your
general offer, which I think is sufficient.
Mr. Williams. We had expected, Mr. Chairman, to take up the
morning and complete both the second and third cases by 12 :?)0 and
complete the last two cases this afternoon early.
So, we weren't going to burden the committee by taking much time.
We were going to be finished by 12 :30; but in the light of the ruling
we are not prepared to go forward on the next two charges.
Because we had set those up for this afternoon, I would ask you
to recess at this time.
The Chairjman. We will recess
Senator Case. Just a moment, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Just a moment.
Senator Gasp. Before the Chair rules on that, I should like to ask
the Chair if, under his ruling, testimony would be permissible which
is, in effect, the statement adopted by the so-called Internal Security
Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary and then adopted
by the full committee, if it bore upon this question of inviting informa-
tion or getting information from Federal employees.
BEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 277
The CiiATRisrAx. I think it is obvious that it would be permissible
to take the action of any of the subdivisions of the Senate, official sub-
divisions, committees, or subcommittees.
Senator Stennis. Were you through?
Senator Case. I will jdeld to the Senator from Mississippi.
Senator Stejstnis. No, not unless you are through.
Senator Case. Then, Mr. Chairman, I do not understand the state-
ment of counsel that he could not proceed with the expression of
what he intended to do in view of his earlier statement that he intended
to present such a statement and now declines to do so.
The Chaiemajst. Are you calling attention to the memo that was
submitted ?
Mr. Williams. Senator Case, I will be glad to outline for you, sir,
right now what evidence we were going to put in, if you want to,
hear it.
The Chairman. I would say, the chairman of the committee mak-
ing his ruling, tliat if we are not going to permit it, the Senator to
-argue it, T don't see any reason we should permit you. It is still
immaterial if you are going to bring in these other matters and
argue it.
Make your offer of proof in a general way without going into all
the details.
Mr. Wii-LL\]MS. I understand the ruling : neither Senator McCarthy
nor I may present argument on these.
The Chairman. You can argue at the proper time, but we are not
going to break into the taking of testimony to make the argument on
each one of these proffers.
Mr. Williams. I thought the Chair said I could not argue these
precedents.
The Chairman. These individual precedents, no. I have given
you time to argue about the individual precedents, but I am not going
to permit you to go in and recite each one, the details, at least.
Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman, while you were ruling here, and
during the colloquy back and forth expressed by Mr. Williams, ISIr.
Williams seemed to emphasize the things he could not do, and he
is concerned about that, I am sure; but I just jotted down here the
ruling of the Cliair as I understood it, of the things that will be per-
mitted to be put in evidence, and of course that includes any law that
might have anv bearing on the subject, or any rule of the Senate, or,
I suppose, of tlie House either.
The Chairman. It does not have the same weight.
Senator Stennis. If it is pertinent to the subject matter, but also
anything in reference to action by the Senator or the House, or any-
thing that is pertinent here, in the form of a policy of the committee
or the actions of a committee or a subcommittee.
Mr. Williams. Senator
Senator Stennis. May I see here if I correctly understood the out-
line of the ruling. As I understand, what is ruled out is merely the
■statements of individual Senatoi^s or Membei'S of the Congress.
The Chairman. Or their actions.
Senator Stennis. Or their actions.
Mr. Williams. Senator, why my hands are tied, I may say, is that
there was no formal action taken by the Senate because the Senate
never attempted to censure any of these many other people who made
278 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
these statements, so that there was no formal action on their
statements.
Senator Stennis. I was merely trying to clarify the ruling, and as
I understand the chairman, he admitted statements of a subcommittee
chairman, the former Senator Black.
The Chairman. In his official capacity.
Senator Stennis. In his official capacity, comparable to that of
Senator McCarthy. Those and like matters would be admitted, as I
understand from the Chair.
The Chairman. I think that is pretty clear from what I said, and I
repeat it here several times. Then you may proceed with whatever
category you are ready to take up next at 2 o'clock this afternoon.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. The committee will be in recess until 2 p. m.
(Whereupon, at 11 : 45 a. m., the hearing was recessed until 2 p. m.,
the same day. )
AFTERNOON SESSION
Thereupon, at 2 : 10 p. m., the committee reconvened.
The Chairman. The committee will now be in session.
Mr. Williams, you may proceed with your presentation of evidence.
Photographers will kindly leave the room.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOSEPH R. McCARTHY
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I should like, if I may, to now submit
to the committee our brief on our point of law, which was raised on the
first day, namely, the propriety of going into conduct that antedated
the present Congress, and looking toward a censure move. I have
prepared a written brief on this, and I would like to present it for the
committee's consideration.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Williams. It will be received and
distributed to members, and will be printed at an appropriate place in
the record.
Mr. Williams. I have also, Mr. Chairman, at this time, another
brief regarding the Gillette committee, and the resolution under which
it was operating, which I should like to submit to the committee's
consideration at this time, since we are going into that phase of the
matter.
The Chairman. That is still on the first category ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Both of these briefs are on the first category?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. That may be received. We will have an attendant,
please, take the briefs and distribute them.
Mr. Williams. I would now like, sir, to go into the oral testimony.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Mr. Williams. Senator McCarthy, I direct your attention to Senate
Resolution 187, of the 82d Congress, which has already been intro-
duced into evidence in this proceeding, and ask you, sir, if you were
aware, when you were corresponding back and forth with the Sub-
committee on Privileges and Elections of the 82d Congress, of the
scope of this resolution, under which that committee was purporting
to operate?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 279
Senator McCarthy, Very fully so.
Mr. Williams. And would you tell the committee, for the purpose
of the record, what the scope of that resolution was, with respect to
its powers of investigation?
Senator McCarthy. I would like to read the final paragraph of this,
which contains the resolution, if I may, Mr. Chairman. It is very
brief. I read :
Resolved, That the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate is
authorized and diiected to proceed with such consideration of the report of its
Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, with respect to the 1950 Maryland
senatorial general election, which was made pursuant to Senate Resolution
250, 81st Congress, April 13, 1950, and to make such further investigations with
respect to the participation of Senator McCarthy in the 1950 senatoiial cam-
paign of Senator John Marshall Butler, and such investigation with respect to
ills other acts, since his election to the Senate, as may be appropriate to enable
such committee to determine whether or not it should initiate action with a
view to expulsion from the United States Senate of the said Senator Joseph
McCarthy.
And, Mr. Williams, I call your attention to the fact that is calls
for an investigation of the Maryland election, and of McCarthy's
activities since he was elected to the Senate, and nothing beyond
that.
Mr. Williams. I now hand you a letter captioned "The United
States Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations," bearing the signature
of Guy M. Gillette, dated September 17, 1951, and ask you if you re-
ceived this letter from Senator Gillette, regarding the work of this
committee.
Senator McCarthy. I assume that I did, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Would you look it over and tell us what your best
recollection is. Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. I have previously looked, it over, and my best
recollection is that I received it. May I look it over again, now ?
(The letter was handed to Senator McCarthy.)
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Williams. This letter, Mr. Chairman, has not been offered here-
tofore. I offer it now, and ask that it be included in the record.
The Chairman. I just want to see it, to examine it for its materiality.
Mr. Williams. Certainly [handing letter to the chairman].
The Chairman. The letter will be received in evidence.
Counsel calls my attention to the fact that it is already in evidence.
But whether it is or not, I think it is material.
Mr. Williams. It is not on the list of printed exhibits.
Mr. Chadwick. If we are sure of that, then my thought is wrong
about it.
Mr. Williams. The list of printed exhibits
The Chairman. Do you wish to read it into the record ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
]Mr. Williams. The letter is as follows :
McCarthy Exhibit No. 1
September 17, 1951.
Hon. .Joseph R. McCarthy,
United States Senate.
My Dear Senator : I have just received your letter of inquiry dated Septem-
ber 17, in which reference is made to the consideration of the resolution Intro-
280 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
duced by Senator Benton of Connecticut making certain charges which referred
to you. This resolution, No. 187, was referred by the Senate to tlie Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration. This standing committee, in its turn,
referred the resolution to the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections. Senator
Benton has asked for the privilege of appearing before the subcommittee in
support of his resolution.
There has been no time fixed for the consideration of the resolution because
of other matters that have prior claim on the time of the subcommittee. Thurs-
day of this week has been suggested for the consideration but it is doubtful that
the matter can be reached by that date. I am calling the subcommittee to meet
Wednesday, September 19, at 10 o'clock in the morning to determine when they
wish to take up the resolution for consideration, whether they wish to conduct
hearings in connection with the resolution, and what procedure they wish to
follow in discharging their responsibilities. I shall be very glad to call your
letter to their attention and the request that you have made in the letter.
I am sure that the subcommittee will approach their responsibilities in the-
consideration of this resolution in the spirit of the utmost fairness to all
concerned.
Sincerely,
Guy M. Gillette.
Mr. Williams. What request had you heretofore made, Senator
McCarthy?
The Chairman. Do you have the letter ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Is that in evidence?
Mr. Williams. No, sir ; that was not in evidence.
The Chairman. The letter will be the best evidence.
Mr. Williams. I am going to read that into evidence, with your
permission, sir.
Senator McCartht. The letter of September lY, 1951, Mr. Wil-
liams, which I will hand you, and
The Chairman. I assume you do not have the original.
Mr. Williams. The original must be in the hands of the recipient,
Senator Gillette. We have only a copy, of course.
Senator McCarthy. May I say this, that this is an exact copy.
Tlie Chairman. JNIay we see that, too ? You may proceed with the
letter.
Mr. Williams. The letter is :
McCarthy Exhibit No. 2
United States Senate,
Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments,
September 17, 1951.
Senator Guy M. Gillette,
Chairman, Suhcommittee on Privilecies and Elections,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.
Dear Senator Gillette : I understand that your subcommittee is planning on
starting hearings Thursday of this week on the question of whether your sub-
committee should recommend that McCarthy be expelled from the Senate for
having exposed Communists in Government. I understand further that the only
two witnesses who have asked to appear to date are William Benton, former
Assistant Secretary of State, and a friend and sponsor of some of those whom I
have named, and the American Labor Party, which has been cited twice as a
Communist front.
I understand that, under Senate precedent, members of a full committee have
always had the right to question witnesses who appear before a subcommittee of
their own committee. This I propose to do in the case of witnesses who appear
to a.sk for my expulsion because of my exposure of Communists in Government.
In view of the fact that your subcommittee, without authorization from the
Senate, is undertaking to conduct hearings on this matter, it would seem highly
irregular and unusual if your subcommittee would attempt to deny me the right
HEARINGS OX SENATE RESOLUTION 301 281
to question the witnesses, even had I not been a member of the full committee.
If there is any question in your mind about my right to appear and question the
witnesses, I would appreciate it greatly if you would inform me immediately.
If your subcommittee attempts to deny me the usual right to appear and
question the witnesses, I think it might be well to have the full committee meet
prior to the date set for your hearings to pass upon this question. For that
reason, it is urgent that you inform me immediately what your position is in
the matter.
Sincerely yours,
Joe McCarthy.
The Chairman. For the purpose of the record, I think the letters
ought to be marked as exhibits, so that we can keep track of them.
Have you introduced any exhibits heretofore, Mr. Williams ? Is that
the first of your exhibits ?
Mr. "Williams. This is the first exhibit that we have offered, of a
factual nature. So I will mark these, if I may, as McCarthy Exhibit
No. 1, the letter of September 17, 1951, and as McCarthy Exhibit No.
2, which will appear as the letter from Senator McCarthy to Senator
Gillette, the same date.
The Chairman. That will be sufficient marking, and then if you
have other exhibits, you can show in order the numbers you have just
introduced.
(The letters were marked "McCarthy Exhibits 1 and 2.")
Mr. Williams. Senator, I want to ask you if you received a reply
to your letter to Senator Gillette, in which you asked for the right
to appear and cross-examine the witnesses appearing against you in
the expulsion proceedings.
Senator McCarthy. Yes, I did. I received a reply on September
25, 1951. It was dated September 25, received September 28, 1951.
Mr. Williams. It was received on what date ?
Senator McCarthy. September 28, 1951.
Mr. Williams. Were you given, by Senator Gillette, the right to
cross-examine witnesses appearing against you ?
The Chairman. Just a moment. Do you have those letters ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Are those letters in evidence now?
Mr. Williams. This particular one has been introduced.
The Chairman. Then it should not be necessary to introduce it.
Mr. Williams. I am not going to read it. I am just summing up
the contents so that we can move on.
The Chairman. So that it will be f-resh in the minds of the com-
mittee and others, I think you had better read it.
Mr. Williams. This is a letter addressed as follows :
September 25, 1951.
Hon. Joseph R. McCarthy, ^
United States Senate.
My Dear Joe : I promised to tell you the decision of the Subcommittee on
Privileges and Elections as to procedure as soon as they made the decision.
They are going to take up the B3nton resolution at 9 : 30 a. m. Friday, September
28, in room 457. At that time, they are going to hear Senator Benton's state-
ment. They voted to hear the Senator in executive session, but also voted that
you could be present if you so desired and if time permitted, to make a state-
ment at this same meeting. It was also decided that there should be no cross-
examination except by the members of the subcommittee.
A further decision was made that if additional evidence is taken, it will be
governed by rules of procedure determined after this first meeting.
With personal greetings, I am
Sincerely,
Guy M. Gillette.
282 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. Now, I want to call to your attention, Senator, to an
error that you made wlien you testified concerning this. This indi-
cates it was received September 26, 1951, not September 28.
Senator McCarthy. I believe you are right. It is the 26th instead
of the 28th.
The CiiArRMATsr. I understand we also have that same letter pre-
sented in evidence. It was presented by the committee some time
back.
Mr, Williams. As of this time. Senator McCarthy, had there been
a request from Senator Gillette or any other Senator on this subject
that you be present at this meeting?
Senator McCarthy. There had not.
Mr. Williams, may I tell you something else about this?
I had discussed this matter with Senator Gillette on the Senate
floor. He assured me this would be an executive session. I told him
if it was to be an executive session, I would not attend, that I w^ould
be in Arizona taking a few days' vacation.
Mr. Williams. The letter which you received on September 26
states it will be an executive session, does it not?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Mr. Williams. Now, on September 28, 1951, to your knowledge,
did the committee meet?
Senator McCarthy. I read in the newspapers that it met.
Mr. Williams. I ask the Chair to take legislative notice at this
time from the evidence that has been heretofore admitted that the
committee met in open session and heard Senator Benton on Septem-
ber 28, 1951.
The Chairman. That is already in evidence?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Now, I ask you, as of this time, had there been any request by anyone
of you to appear?
Senator McCarthy. There had not.
May I call to your attention, Mr. Williams, while I was notified that
Benton ayouIcI appear in executive session, after I left town he was
called in open session.
The Chairman. Is there a record of evidence for that?
I think the committee would w^ant to know : Is there a record of
evidence that they met in open session?
Mr. Williams. There is.
The Chairman, Are you prepared to supply it?
Senator McCarthy, The hearings will so indicate, Mr, Chairman,
Mr. AViLLiAMS, The records of the Subcommittee on Elections and
Privileges show and this committee can, of course, judicially notice
them — that the "charges which were preferred by Senator Benton on
September 28, 1951, were preferred in open session.
The Chairman. Well, the reason I am asking is for information,
for the convenience of the committee.
Mr. Williams. Yes.
The Chairman. I am not challenging.
Mr. Williams. Yes.
The Chairman. I just want to know: Is it a matter of evidence
now?
Mr. Williams. I will have to ask Mr. Chadwick if he has introduced
it. My memory doesn't serve, me.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 283
The Chairman. If they have, it is a matter of record. What I want
to be sure is we have these matters in the record.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Tlie Senate will want to know about these matters.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And we want to be sure we have the complete
record.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Williams, if you will look at a letter from Sena-
tor Gillette to Senator McCarthy, dated October 1, 1951, and read by
us in evidence, as exhibit No. 4— —
Mr. Williams. That is right.
Mr. Chadwick. You will find the verification both of the fact that
the meeting was held and that it was a public one.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Mr. Chadwick is absolutely right. The next exhibit does show that
Senator Benton testified in open session.
The Chairman. I was trying to be sure the record was complete.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, sir.
Now, I want to call your attention. Senator, to an exhibit which
Mr. Chadwick offered the other day and which we have just referred
to in the past moment, which was introduced as exhibit 4 originally,
and ask you if in that letter from Senator Gillette there is a request
of you to appear before what we shall call for easy identification the
Gillette committee.
Senator McCartht. Pardon me while I read this, if you will.
The Chairman. Is the letter in evidence now?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Mr. Chadwick. Yes, sir.
The letter speaks for itself, if you want to be technical.
The Chairman. I do not want to be technical.
The counsel calls my attention to the fact that the letter speaks
for itself, but if the Senator wants to summarize it
Senator McCarthy. No. Mr. Gillette tells me here, "if you desire
to come before us."
He said I had no right to cross-examine, however, but there is no
request to appear in this letter.
!^Ir. Williams. Now, did you respond to that letter on October 4,
Senator?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, I did.
Would you like to have me read that response?
It is very brief.
Mr. Williams. No ; because it has already been read.
In that letter you tell Senator Gillette that you do not wish to ap-
pear ; is that right, in response to his invitation ?,
Senator McCarthy. It wasn't an invitation. It was an offer to
allow me to ap])ear if I cared to ap]:)ear. It was not an invitation.
I told him that I acknowledged his offer to give me the opportunity to
appear and that I was not accepting. I was not requesting an
opportunity.
52461—54 19
284 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. And that was on October 4 of 1951 ?
Senator JMcCarthy. That is right.
Mr. Williams. Up until this time, had there been, from anyone,
staff member or committee member, a request that you appear'^
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. Williams. Now, I want to direct your attention, Senator
McCarthy, to December of 1951. I want to direct your attention
spec-fi?ally to the investigation which was being conducted by the
committee of which you had personal knowledge and ask you to
tell the committee those things of which you had personal knowledge.
Senator McCartpiy. Well, I had
The Chairman. Which committee? May I interrupt there?
Which committee are you now talking about?
Mr. Williams. I want him to tell your committee, Senator Watkins,
the
Senator IMcCakthy. The Gillette committee.
Mr. Williams. The scope of the investigation of the Gillette com-
mittee, insofar as he has personal knowledge of it, as of the date^
December 6, 1951.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Williams, I had— — ■
The Chairman. Just a minute.
Senator McCarthy. I had personally
The Chairman. Just a minute. A question has been called to
my attention. Are you testifying to what was actually being done?
Mr, Williams. Yes.
The Chairman. And not what the resolution covered?
Mr. Williams. Yes ; what was actually being done.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Williams, is it the subject matter of the letter
of December 6, 1951, which was introduced and read as an exhibit?
Mr. Williams. No, sir. I am before that, Mr. ChadAvick. I am
aeking the Senator now, before he wrote this letter, what, to his
personal knowledge, was beinc; done in the way of investigation by this
committee acting purportedly pursuant to the resolution which is
in evidence here, 187.
The Chairman. I assume you will qualify him so it will be clear
he is speaking from personal knowledge.
Senator McCarthy. I will be able to speak from personal knowl-
edge.
Mr. Williams, while the resolution — and I don't concede this is a
valid resolution, but assuming it is for the time being — restricts the
investigation to an investigation of the Maryland election and acts that
I committed since my election, I was aM^are on December 6, 1951, that
the committee was going back as far as 1935, at least, that they were
investigating acts in my life long before I was old enough to be a
Senator, that they were investigating the income-tax returns of those
who had contributed to my 1944 election, that they were investigating,
for example, the income-tax returns of my father who had died before
I was elected,
Mr, Williams. Now, did you call this fact to the attention of the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections?
Senator McCarthy. I did.
Mr. Williams. Did you call to his attention the fact that the com-
mittee investigative staff was exceeding the scope of the resolution
under which they were purporting to act ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 285
Senator McCarthy. I did.
Mr. Williams. And did you do that by letter?
Senator McCarthy. Both by letter, Mr. Williams, and orally.
Mr. Williams. Was that on December 6, 1951?
Senator JNIcCarthy. My letter on December 6, yes.
The Chairman. That is one of the letters that is in evidence?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Xow, prior to the time that that letter was written, which was intro-
duced here by Mr. Chadwick as exhibit No. 6, had you received direct
knowledge from a staff member of the conmiittee as to the method in
which the investioation was beinp; conducted?
Senator McCarthy. I had.
The Chairman. Well, now, I think you ought to probably identify
it since we don't have it as part of the record, you might identify the
staff member and the time and place and so on.
Mr. Williams. I might call the chairman's attention also to the fact
that part of the record which the Chair has judicially noticed, part of
the record which the Chair has already judicially noticed, covers the
subject of Senator ]McCarthy's 1944: primary campaign.
The Chairman. It AA'as admitted for the purpose of showing juris-
diction, for that limited purpose.
Mr. Williams. And 1 think, if I may say, sir, that the fact that that
is covered is evidence in this record of an investigation that was going
back behind Senator McCarthy's coming to the Senate in 1947 ; in other
words, they reported fully on his 1944 campaign. I call the Chair's
attention to that.
The Chairman. I think we have seen the record and, as I recall,
it does indicate that they had been making some investigations back
there.
JNIr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Senator JNIcCarthy. In answer to your question, Mr. Williams
Mr. Chadwick. Excuse me just a minute, Senator.
Senator McCarthy. Certainly.
( Discussion oft" the record.)
The Chairman. I take it you are offering this on the theory that
the defense you interposed here that the committee lacked jurisdiction.
Mr. Williams, I offer it on the theory. Senator Watkins, that this
committee was exceeding its authorization under Senate Resolution
187 as early as December 1951, by the investigation which it was
conducting.
The Chairman. That is was exceeding ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I assume you mean by that the committee was
illegal because it was exceeding its jurisdiction.
Mr. Williams. I have not reached that point in our discourse yet,
but I did want to demonstrate this point as of December 1951, that it
was exceeding its jurisdiction already in going into the matter which
there was, for which there was no authorization and rule.
The Chairman. All right.
Senator Ervin. Your position is at the present moment that even
assuming the resolution to be valid, the resolution would at least con-
fine the committee to activities which did not antedate the election of
1946.
JNlr. Williams. Exactly, Senator Ervin.
286 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
In other words that the resokition did not authorize the committee
to go behind January 3, 1947.
Now, the last (juestion that I asked you, Senator, was this : Prior
to the communication that you acklressed to Senator Gillette on Decem-
ber 6, 1951, did you have a conversation with a staft' member of the
subcommittee in question on the scope of the investigation ?
Senator McCarthy. I did.
Mr. Williams. Would you state the facts surrounding that con-
versation, the identity of the staff member ?
Senator McCarthy. It was Mr. Daniel Buckley, one of the staff
members.
He reported to me, and I had never met him before, that he was sent
to Wheeling, W. Va.
The Chairman. Just a moment. You are getting into what he was
doing. We wanted to know primarily whether this is com})etent
evidence or not.
Mr. Williams. I offer it for this reason, Senatoi' : I tliink it becomes
very germane to show Senator McCarthy's motive in his relationship
with this committee.
Charge has been made that he was contemptious of the committee.
Now, I think we have to look at his mind in relationship to each com-
munication that he had with the committee and what infornuition
he had at the time that he had such connnunication with the connnittee,
and I think this goes very nmch to the heart of what his state of mind
was as of December 6.
Now, I hasten to say to Senator Watkins that I am not departing
from the record because the matter which I am going into is right in
the report of the committee which is already in evidence.
The Chairman. I think it is probably proper to go on with the
question of the state of his mind.
However, I think you should identify the time and place and name
the person with whom he talked. That has not been done yet. I
think that should be done before he proceeds to say what he learned
or what he thought he learned.
Mr. Williams. I do, too, and I have just asked him to identify the
person and the circumstances under which he talked to that person.
Senator McCarthy. It was Mr. Daniel Buckley, one of the coimnit-
tee investigators. He called either me or Jean — I ffirget which one —
said he had information which disturbed him a great deal. He came
to see me and I think he saw me over at Jean's house. He reported to
me that he had been sent to Wheeling, W. Va., to get the facts sur-
rounding the Wheeling speech, question of whether I had said two hun-
dred five or fifty-seven, that he came back with, I believe, 8 affidavits
and that all except 1 completely contradicted Senator Benton's con-
tention; that after he was back — I am relating this from memory, Mr.
Chairman — after he was back in the office, he received a call from Sen-
ator Tydings who is not a member of the committee, castigating him.
The Chairman. Just a moment. I think that probably is outside
of the scope of the investigation. I ruled that that is immaterial.
Mr. Williams. What he did.
Senator McCarthy. That he was criticized for not receiving affi-
davits which would uphold Benton's position ; that he was then rele-
gated to a position at a desk, no longer — strike that — first, he went
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 287
back; he was taken back down to Wheeling with some of the other
investioators; attempt made to get some of the people who signed the
affidavit to change their affidavits, to uphold Benton's position. They
were unsuccessful.
After that, he was relegated to a position at a desk, no longer an
investigator; after that he quit.
Mr. Williams. Now, do you have this information concerning
Buckley's experiences in Wheeling ?
The Chairman. Just a minute. Maybe I have slipped one, but did
you give his name ?
Senator McCarthy. Daniel Buckley.
The Chairman. That's right. I beg your pardon.
Mr. Williams. Did you have this information regarding Buckley's
experiences in IVlieeling before your communication of December 6
to Senator Gillette ?
Senator McCarthy. All except possibly his quitting.
I am not sure if he had quit by December 6. I wouldn't know the
date that he quit.
Mr. Williams. Now, on December 6, you did write to Senator Gil-
lette ; did you not ?
Senator McCarthy. I did.
Mr. Williams. And that letter is already in evidence so I won't ask
you to reread it, but in that letter, you pointed out to him, did you not,
that you felt that his committee w^as way outside the scope of its au-
thorization ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, I pointed it out and I felt that at the time
very strongly.
Mr. Williams. As of this time, and I now address myself to Decem-
ber 6, 1951, had there been a request from any member of the committee
or any staff member, that you appear before the committee ?
Senator McCarthy. There had not.
Mr. Williams. Senator, it was thereafter, was it not, that you wrote
to Senator Gillette and requested of him the names of the persons who
Mere working on the investigation that was being conducted pursuant
to Senate Resolution 187 ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, that is right.
Mr. Williams. And the communications that you had with him
over the next week related to that subject matter; did they not?
Senator McCarthy. Apparently so.
Mr. Williams. Would you look at that now, sir?
Senator McCarthy. December 7, yes; December 11, yes; December
19, yes. Let's see — December 7, 1 asked for the information. Decem-
ber 11, 1 got a letter not giving me the information, giving me some of
it. December 19, 1 again write and ask for the information. I guess
that would cover the week.
Mr. Williams. Now, I call your attention to a letter which has
already been introduced into evidence as exhibit No. 11 by Mr. Chad-
wick, a letter dated December 21, 1951, addressed to you and bearing
the signature of Senator Guy Gillette. I ask you, sir, if in this letter
there is any request of you to ap]3ear before this committee.
Senator McCarthy. Could I take a minute to — no, he says on
page 66 of Mr. Chadwick's exhibit, as I have told you before, if you
care to appear before the subcommittee, we shall be glad to make
the necessary arrangements as to time and place.
288 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
May I say, Mr. Williams, that I infoniied Mr. Gillette that I had
no desire to appear before the committee. I was very frank in telling
him I thouirht they were beyond their jurisdiction but I would honor
a subpena if they served one on me. I said, either a subpena or' an
order — I forget which — I told the press, also, that I would not appear
unless I was ordered to appear because I had no desire to appear
before that committee.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Mr, Chadwick. Will j^ou clear up with your client whether or
not he said it appeared in any letter or any other evidence before this
bodv, or whether it is simply from his recollection?
Mr. Williams. They appear in the record and in evidence now
because he just testified to the fact which he has knowledge of regard-
ing his conversation with Senator Gillette. It is clearly germane here.
The Chairman. It is germane all right. The point is, he was
asking for information, if it appeared in any letter.
Senator McCarthy. I would have to go through all of the letters
to find out.
The Chairman. I would like to know for the record when it was
he talked to Senator Gillette and where.
Mr. Williams. Do you have a recollection on that?
Senator McCarthy. I talked to Guy Gillette a number of times.
He told me by letter that if I wanted to appear, I could appear;
told me I could not cross examine. He told me the same thing on
the Senate floor. I told him unless I had the right to cross examine,
which is an inherent right in any hearing to expel a Senator, that
I had no desire to appear but that if I were ordered to appear, I
would appear.
I am not sure that I used the "order" or "subpena." I think I
used the word "subpena." I am sure Senator Gillette would confirm
that.
Mr. Williams. So that, at this time, you had told Senator Gillette
that if an order were issued, or a subpena — which is, in fact, an
order to appear — you would do so ?
Senator ^IcCartity. Mr. Williams, I cannot tell you as to time.
I can tell you that I did tell Guy Gillette a number of times that I
would not appear; on my own motion, I would not request the right to
appear, but that if there were a subpena or an order, I would honor
such subpena. That was told to the press, also, that I would honor
a subpena, even though the Parliamentarian had informed me that
they had no right to subpena a Senator during the session; and I
have been so informed again.
Mr. Williams. Now, taking you down to the first part of January
1952 : as of January 1952, had there been any request from any mem-
ber of the committee or any staff member that you appear before the
Gillette committee?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Williams, I hate to hold you up, but
there is a letter, here, of Januai^ 10. I would like to glance through
it and make sure whether there was no request.
Mr. Williams. That is already in evidence.
Senator McCarthy. No, there was no request as of January 31,
1952.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 289
Mr. WiTxiAMS. Now, directing your attention to March 1952, when
there was another exchange of correspondence between yon and Sen-
ator Gillette and Senator Hayclen, I ask you the question as to whether
or not, as of that date, there had been a request by any staff member
or any member of the committee — I include anyone connected with
that committee — for you to appear.
Senator McCarthy. There had not.
Mr. Williams. Now, in April of 1952, a resolution was adopted
by the Senate, which gave this committee the right to conduct an
investigation under Senate Resolution 187; is that right?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct. I voted for the resolution.
Mr. Williams. Did that resolution extend the scope of investiga-
tive power of this committee beyond January 3, 1947 ?
Senator McCarthy. Well, if you will read the resolution, Mr. Wil-
liams, you will find that it is restricted strictly to an investigation
under Senate Resolution 187 — no extension of power.
Mr. Williams. Now, as of this time, did you have knowledge —
personal knowledge — of the scope of the investigation that was con-
tinuing by the investigative staff of the Gillette subcommittee?
Senator McCarthy. I did.
Mr. Wuj-iAMS. Can you tell us whether or not the investigation of
you went back of 1947 ?
Ssnator McCarthy. Far behind 1947 — I say dates at which I was
not old enough to be a candidate for the United States Senate.
May I say, .Mr. Williams, I had no objection to their investigating
my life from birth to date, if they were doing it under a valid Senate
resolution; if the Senate voted to have me investigated, they could
do that.
They have not so voted ; therefore, the committee was conducting
an illegal and improper investigation.
Mr. Williams. Now, on May 7, 1952, you received a letter from
Senator Gillette, did you not?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir ; that is right.
Mr. Williams. I refer to the letter which has already been intro-
duced as exhibit No. 17, of Mr. Chadwick's. In that letter you were
advised that "A hearing will be held on May 12." Is that not right?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Mr. Williams. There was a demand that you be present ?
Senator McCarthy. No. The language of the letter is :
I do wish to extend to you the opportunity to appear.
Mr. Williams. Is there a request that you be present ?
Senator McCarthy. No request; there is just an extension of the
opportunity to appear, and "''hope you will act as a spectator" — which
I would have a right to do at a public hearing, without the invitation.
Mr. Williams. Now, as of May 7, 1952, had there been from any-
body, either on the committee or on the staff of the committee, a
demand or request — I use the two terms significantly — a demand or
a request to be present ?
Senator McCarthy. Neither a demand nor a request.
All I had received up to that time was a number of letters from
Senator Gillette telling me that if I desired to appear, I could appear,
and in some cases, apparently, whether as a spectator ; but he made it
■clear that I could appear as a witness, if I wanted to.
290 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. Well, now, in that letter of May 7, 1952, which is
referred to in this hearing as exhibit No. 17, you were advised that
the committee would take evidence on what tliey called case No. 2 the
Lustron matter ; is that right ?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
IMr. Williams. Did you write a letter on May 8, 1952, giving the
committee pertinent information on the Lustron matter, and calling
'their attention to matters of record on that subject?
Senator McCarthy. I did, and gave them all the information that
I had at my command on the Lustron matter.
Mr. CiiADWicK. Mr. Williams, that, I take it, is the letter which has
heretofore been read, called exhibit No. 18 ?
Mr. Williams. That is right, sir.
Now, did there come a time when you did, in fact, appear before this
particular subcommittee and testify ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes ; I appeared before the subcommittee and
testified.
Mr. Williams. And on what date was that ?
Senator McCarthy. I frankly would not recall the dates. I know
that I appeared and testified. It would be impossible to recall the
dates.
]Mr. WiLiAMS. Let me, in the orderly seq.uence of things, then, ad-
dress your attention. Senator, to a letter dated May 10, 1952, signed
''Guy Gillette" addressed to you, which is of record as exhibit No. 20,
and ask you whether or not any demand or request is made of you to
appear in connection with Senate Resolution 187.
Senator McCarthy. No. There is merely repeated the statement in
his letter of the 7th, in which he says — I quote :
I shall extend to you an opportunity to appear at the hearings for the pur-
pose of presenting testimony related to tliis charge.
ISIr. Williams. That is quoted from the previous letter ?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Mr. Williams. Now, would you look at the fourth paragraph of
that letter?
Senator McCarthy (reading) :
It seemed the courteous thing to do to invite you to appear, to attend, so you
could have full opportunity to present additional evidence, or, at a later period,
to present any evidence you might wish to make available to us in refutation or in
explanation of any evidence which you adduced at the hearings. That was the
purpose of my letter to you, and you are assured that the opportunity will con-
tinue to be yours to present such matters as you wish.
In other words, he says, here :
The opportunity will continue, to appear and present such matters as you
wish, to refute Benton's charges.
Mr. Chadwick. The evidence you desired to present was in connec-
tion with this hearing — if you desired; is that right? Is that the
idea ?
Senator McCarthy. "If you desire to do so."' I think that should
be part of it. So he emphasized that this was only if I desired to
come — u]) to tliis point.
Mr. Williams. Now, thereafter, without going into detail, did you
have an exchange of correspondence with Senator Gillette regarding
an appearance in connection with Senate Resolution No. ?>04?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 291
Senator McCarthy. I did.
Mr. Williams. And is that the resolution on which you testified
on July 3, 1952?
Senator McCarthy. I assume that is the correct date.
Mr. Williams. And that was your Senate Resolution 304?
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Mr. Williams. Xow, up until the time that you had testified on
July 3, 1952, liad there been either a command or a request that you
appear in connection with Senate Resolution 187 ?
Senator McCarthy. No; there had not, Mr. Williams, either oral
or written.
Mr. Williams. Had you had any conversation with any member of
the committee on the subject of a subpena by Senator Gillette?
Senator JNIcCarthy. I had only conversation with Guy Gillette, as
far as I know.
Mr. Williams. Now, directing your attention. Senator
Senator McCarthy. That is with regard to the subpena.
Mr. Williams. With regard to the subpena.
To September of 1952, as of this date, had the resignations of an-
ther staff member and a committee member come to your attention ?
Senator ^McCarthy. JMr. Williams, T am afraid you will have to
refresh my recollection as to the date of the resignations.
I know tliat Senator Welker resigned, pointing out that the com-
mittee was being used for political purposes.
Two staff members resigned, pointing out that the staff was being
dishonestly used — and I don't know they used the word "dishonestly,"
but that was the purport of it.
Ultimately 3 of the 5 committee members resigned.
]\Ir. Williams. Now, it was at this time, was it not, that Senator
Gillette also resigned?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, Senator Gillette resigned one day — yes,
now that I think of it, I believe Senator Welker resigned on Sep-
tember 9 ; is that correct ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Pointing out that he would not serve on a com-
mittee that was being used for political purposes, being dishonestly
used.
Guy Gillette resigned the following day.
Senator Monroney resigned a short time later.
Mr. Williams. That was in November, was it not ?
Senator McCarthy. I believe in November.
The Chairman. You have in your possession letters of the resig-
nations ?
Mr. Williams. I have them in the record, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I think it is rather immaterial to this issue whether
anybody resigned or not, but I do not mind it being in evidence.
However, I would like to have the letters. The letters would be the
best evidence.
Senator McCarthy. I think it might be material for this reason,
Mr. Chairman, if I may say so :
There was a five-man subcommittee. Once three of the members had
resigned there was no longer a legal subcommittee.
Mr. Williams. Senator Welker resigned on September 9, 1952, by
a letter which appears in the record, exhibit No. 36.
292 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
I refer to the report of the Gillette coniinittee. Senator Gil-
lette
The Chairman. Is that in evidence now'^
Mr. Williams. Well, I understood that you took judicial notice
The Chairman. Well, we will take judicial notice
Mr. Williams. Yes.
The Chairman. But we did not take everything and put it in this
hearing record, to take judicial notice of.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. We said we can take judicial notice of these
matters.
Mr. Williams. Yes.
The Chairman, But I think for this hearing record which we are
building up for the use of the Senate
Mr. Williams. Yes.
The Chairman. We ought to have such material that is pertinent
introduced in evidence.
Is tliat in tlie liearing record at all — I mean the hearing record of
the so-called HHH Committee ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir
The Chairman. I had not examined it thoroughly with respect to
all the letters.
Senator McCarthy. Page 94.
The Chairman. May I ask our counsel : Was that letter of Senator
Gillette's put in evidence ?
Mr. Chadwick. I think not, sir. I don't recall that it was, but I
will gladly consult the record and see if there is a letter on that sub-
ject and call it to the chairman's attention for his disposition.
The Chairman. You claim it is material, do you ?
Mr. Willl4Ms. I think
The Chairman. You might tell us your theory on it as to why you
think it is material.
Mr. Williams. I think I can tell you that in very short order, Mr.
Chairman.
The Benton resolution of August 6, 1 believe, of 1951, was referred
to the Committee on Rules and Administration and then, in turn,^
referred to the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections.
At that time a five-man committee undertook to conduct hearings
pursuant to that resolution. The investigation hearings continued
over a period of a year.
At the end of the year there were only 2 of the original 5 present.
Not only were there only 2 of the original 5, but the committee mem-
bership was changed with no authorization from anyone from a 5-man
committee to a 3-man committee.
Senator McCarthy. Without committee approval.
Mr. Williams. Without committee approval.
The Chairman. Can you establish that as a matter of record?
Ordinarily it is assumed that things will be done according to rules
and regulations unless the contrary is shown.
So, I think it would be obligatory upon you to show a failure of
action.
Mr. Williams. I call the attention of the Chair to page 95 of what
the Chair calls the H-H-H report, and to exhibit 37, a letter dated
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 293
September 10, 1952, and I offer that as evidence of the things which
I have just stated.
The Chairman. Whose letter is that?
Mr. Williams. A letter directed to Senator Carl Hayden, chairman
of the Committee on Rules and Administration, signed by Senator
Guy Gillette.
The Chairman. May I examine the letter for a moment ?
It is only evidence, of course, of what Senator Guy Gillette says
about it, but it does not clear up the matter I called to your attention.
What was the action of the full committee, or the chaii'man, who
has the power to appoint these committees, create the size of them?
Mr. Williams. So far as we can determine. Senator, this happened :
Senator Welker and Senator Gillette stepped down. That left Sena-
tors Monroney, Hennings, and Hendrickson, and then Senator Mon-
roney stepped down and Senator Hayden substituted himself therefor.
So, No. 1, the actual constituency of the committee was changed in
the middle of the expulsion hearing, 3 of the original members no
longer being on it when the report was signed, but. No. 2, the numbers
of the members was changed from a committee of 5 to a committee of
3, and there is nothing that we can find by way of authorization of
that in the records of the committee itself.
The Chairman. You have made an investigation ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Ervin.
Senator Ervin. I would like to ask Mr. Williams if he has any law
for his position, because recently as a member of the Supreme Court of
North Carolina I had to write an opinion involving the questiort
whether the power of a board or committee ceases by reason of deaths
or withdrawals from the group, and I came to the conclusion and
wrote an opinion to the effect that as long as the majority of the group
continue, the legal power can be exercised by the majority.
Mr. Williams. I would subscribe to that. Senator Ervin, but the
majority didn't last here, because only 2 of the 5 lasted.
Senator Ervin. Senator Hayden was the chairman, wasn't he ?
Mr. Williams. He was not in any way concerned with these pro-
ceedings, until after
Senator Ervin. That is true.
Mr. Williams. 1952.
Senator Ervin. That is true. I 'haven't been here long, and you
haven't been here at all, but I will ask, as a matter of fact, this ques-
tion: Who appoints the members of the subcommittee?
Senator McCarthy. The full committee.
Mr. Williams. I understand the full committee does, by vote.
Of course, you pointed out, I haven't been here at all.
Senator Ervin. AVell, I haven't been here long enough to find that
out.
Mr. Williams. But I was always told the full committee appointed
the members of tlie subcommittee. However, I have to yield to the
superior knowledge around me.
Senator Ervin. If you are right in your position
Senator McCarthy. Mav I
294 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator Ervin. If you have a subcommittee of 5, and especially on a
closely divided Senate, and 3 of the majority and 2 of the minority,
the minority can just resign and then you would paralyze the action
of the subcommittee ; wouldn't it ?
Senator McCarthy. May I, Senator, for your benefit,. say,.as far as
I know, from consulting with the Parliamentarian, the chairman
nominates the members of the subconnnittee ; the full conunittee must
confirm them or they are not legally acting as membei-s of the sub-
committee. That is to the best of my knowledge. So, therefore, you
had 2 members of a 5-man committee acting.
Senator Ervin. And then to Mr. Williams another legal question :
You may have a de facto committee even if you do not have a de jure
committee. That is just something to think about. I have no opinion
on law, but there are some legal problems that strike me as pertinent.
The Chairman. I will say the connnittee stalf will be directed to
make an immediate investigation of that situation.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. The committee wants to know the legal status.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. We will try to dig up whatever facts there are.
Mr. Williams. You will, I am sure, be more successful in getting
the facts than I in directing the staff to look into this.
The Chairman. We will get what facts there are, if they are in
existence. If they are not
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Senator Casp:. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Case.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, was the letter of Senator Gillette
resigning from the committee introduced into the record?
Mr. Williams. I think it should be. I have offered it.
Senator Case. I think it should be, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I think so, too, and, if we have finally finished the
discussion, if you will now offer it, we will receive it in evidence.
Mr. Williams. I will offer it.
The Chairman. The letter will be received as McCarthy exhibit
No. 3.
MoCauthy Exhibit No. 3
Septembee 10, 1952.
Senator Carl Haydbn,
Chainnan, (Jommittee on Rules and Administration,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
My Dear Carl : Doubtless you are seriously distrubed, as I am, over the
recent action of Senator Welker and Investigator Poorbaugh. Both of these
resignations were given to the press before I received them.
The situation that has developed with reference to the subcommittee work,
seems to indicate a purpose on the part of some colunniists and adherents of
both Senator Benton and Senator McCarthy to discredit the work of the sub-
committee. Recently, the efforts have been directed to attaclcs on me pe^rsonally.
While, of course, I can take my share of abuse, I do not want the fine work
that the sulicommittee has done, and is doing, to be impeded or jeopardized by
me. As you liuow, I tried to resign as cliairman earlier last spring, l)ut you
pointed out the situation with reference to membership on the Rules Committee,
which made it difficult to fill my place with a new assignment from the Demo-
cratic side of the committee. I have definitely concluded that the best interests
of the .subcommittee, and its future work, would be for a new chairman to be
selected to handle its work.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 295
Realizing the difficulty, which you presented before, of lindins a replace-
ment for me in the membership of the Rules Committee, may I suggest that
the membership of the subcommittee be again limited to three members.
You will recall, that 2 members were added, at my request, at the time
the subcommittee was investigating the Maryland case, and Senators Monroney
and Smith had requested that in view of the fact that they were not lawyers
that 2 attorneys be assigned. It was for this reason that the membership
was increased to 5, and a membership of 5 has distinct disadvantages. It is
quite essential that the subcommittee work in harmony and its actions be taken
with unanimous support so far as possible. This has necessitated trying to
get the fiveman membership together or in contact so that they can present
their views. It has meant postponement after postponement of action, as the
membership of the subcommittee was scattered, or one member or other absent
from Washington, and subcommittee sessions postponed awaiting the members
return.
When the subcommittee membership consisted of three members, we had
little difficulty in this regard, and I feel strongly that it should be restored to
this number.
If Senator Welker carries out his announced intention and sends his resigna-
tion to you, the opportunity is clear for a return to a three-man meml)ership.
My resignation would be clearly indicated and would leave Senators Hennings,
Monroney, and Hendrickson. As you know, there are no three members of the
Senate who are more capable, or more high minded, that these men. They
have always been scrupulously fair in their consideration of the difficult prob-
lems laid before the subcommittee. There is no doubt in my mind that it would
be in the best interest of the work of the subcommittee to take the action I
have suggested.
I have called a meeting of the subcommittee in Washington, the 26th of this
month, if would be of special advantage if this action of reduction in mem-
bership, and the acceptance of my resignation, could be consummated in time
for that meeting. I will, of course, be there to bow out and help in plans to
carry out the work, so far as I could properly participate in the plans.
I am sending a copy of this letter to the other members of the subcommittee,
and I surely hope that you will see the matter as I do. I realize, of course,
that I will be attacked severel.v for alleged "running out on responsibilities"
but the integrity of the election processes, and the value of the subcommittee's
work, are far more imiiortant than my own feelings in the matter.
With warm personal greetings, I am
Sincerely,
Guy M. Gillette.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, may we have a 5-minute recess?
The Chairman. We will be liberal. We will take 10 minutes.
(Whereupon, at 3: 15 p. m., a 20-minute recess was taken.)
The Chairman. The committee will resume session.
You may proceed, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Senator McCarthy, exhibit No. 21 was introduced
last week by Mr. Chad wick. It is abetter dated May 11, 1952, regard-
ing the open hearings that M'ere scheduled in the month of May 1952
in Senate Resolution 187.
What were the circumstances surrounding the writing of that
letter ?
Senator McCarthy. Well, the committee had received a staff report
that a Mr. Robert Byers
The Chairman. Just a moment.
I think probably that is hearsay and that it is incompetent evi-
dence, immaterial as well, and I strike that out.
Mr. Williams. I want to show w^hat was in the writer's mind when
this letter was written, because that was introduced as being relevant
by Mr. Chadwick to these charges ; therefore, I think it becomes most
relevant as to what facts were in his mind at the time the letter was
written.
296 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
I don't think the letter standing alone is the final answer to the
charge.
The Chairman. What the Senator was testifying to is that this man
had become incompetent, or sometliing of that sort.
Now, clearly, that is a statement of fact. That is not a statement
of what was in his mind. That is irrelevant, immaterial.
Mr. Williams. I will ask him what his information was at the
time he wrote this letter which was introduced by Mr. Chadwick.
The Chairman. Suppose the situation were that this man actually
were insane. What difference would it make in this case ?
I am asking that sincerely. I want to know what is your point of
view on the materiality.
Mr. Williams. I think it goes to the kind of investigation that was
being conducted here.
If a witness was called who was so unstable he was mentally incom-
petent, as a supporter of some of the charges that were being leveled,
then it seems to me it goes to the investigative techniques of the com-
mittee, and the manner in which this investigation was being con-
ducted under Senate Resolution 187.
The Chairman. I do not see that that is material. The letter, of
course, speaks for itself, but I should say in addition to that, the
matter is immaterial, the matter that is material here is whether the
committee, in view of the rules, whether tlie committee had jurisdiction
and whether an investigation was actually going on.
We are not going to investigate whether the charges — whether the
charges that were being investigated were true or false, or whether
the evidence was good, bad, or indifferent.
The only matter this committee is interested in is whether a reso-
lution had been introduced authorizing the investigation, and second,
was it being carried on, and did it have jurisdiction.
That has been raised by you. But I do not think whether an in-
vestigator was incompetent, whether he was insane, or not insane, has
anything particularly to do with this particular investigation we are
now conducting.
Senator McCarthy. May I have 30 seconds on this?
The Chairman. We did have a rule once that only one of you was
to speak to these matters, and I have waived it several times, if you
recall.
I will waive it again. Go ahead Senator.
Senator McCarthy. I merely want to point out that the star wit-
ness was known to the committee to be this has to do with
whether or not I would volunteer to appear as a witness.
The Chairman. I tliink what you said about "smear job," and all
that — that it go out of the record.
Mr. Williams. There is one other thing. Senator.
Senator Ervin. I believe the same thing about what the Senator
said about the committee. I believe that the Senator should tell us
about the facts and let us di'aw the conclusions as to whether the
committee had the state of mind he stated.
Senator McCarthy. I would like to tell the facts.
Mr. Williams. There is one other thing I want to call to jouv
attention, Mr. Chairman. You said we were concerned solely with
whether this committee was exceeding its jurisdiction.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 297
We are also concerned with whether or not they ever requested
Senator McCarthy to be present, as we unfold the facts.
The Chairman. That may be one phase of the case.
Of course, there is a legal question that will be involved.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. We have shown that already by our investigation,
probably, and we are not passing on that yet, finally, as to whether
that is "right or wrong, that you wouldn't necessarily have to bp
f your personal
subpenaed or ordered in or even requested.
Mr. Williams. Now, as of 1952, September, o
knowledge, can you tell us whether or not the committee was conduct-
ing an investigation back behind 1947 ?
Senator IVIcCarthy. They were.
The Chairman. Let's find out just what the basis of his knowledge
is. That is a conclusion. On the face of it, it would appear maybe
the Senator would not have personal knowledge of it, but let's find
out. I do not want to have to discover
Mr. Williams. Do you know whether or not your bank records in
1935 at the Shawano Bank in Wisconsin, were being looked into?
Senator McCarthy. My correspondence with the bank was run
in serial form in the opposition press in my State, letters having
nothing to do with misconduct, letters asking for extension of time to
pay interest, the response from the bank president, letters gotten by
the committee.
That was given to the opposition press. It had nothing whatso-
ever to do with any election. It is all a matter of public record
that they gave=
The Chairman. Just a moment. Senator. I have asked you about
whether you knew personally, or not.
Now, you have not indicated how you happened to know. You
want to tell about these things. That is not direct evidence of what
the committee did.
You say these things were run in the paper. Of course, you can
read the newspaper, but whether or not the committee read the paper
would be an eiitirely different thing.
Senator McCarthy. I was advised by Mr. Gillette.
The Chairman. That, of course, is hearsay again.
It seems to me that unless we are going to waive the hearsay rule
completely that that is not the way to prove that these things were
done.
You say you know of it personally and your own personal knowledge
is what you get from somebody else telling you. That is hearsay
under the rule.
Senator McCarthy. The chairman of the committee, Mr. Gillette,
would not be hearsay. They are in the record now.
Mr. Williams. Now, Senator
The Chairman. If it is in the record, there is no necessity for your
testifying to it.
Senator ISIcCarthy. Very well.
The Chairman. I do not know that it is, but if it is there, it is
there.
Senator McCarthy. Very well.
298 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The Chairman. All I am trying to do is keep this im^estigation on
its tracks and observe some of the rules with respect to hearsay,
materiality, and relevancy.
Proceed.
Mr. Williams. Senator, I want to come down, sir, to November
of J.952. I direct your attention to a letter written on November 7,
which was offered in evidence here by Mr. Chadwick, signed by Paul
Cotter, the chief counsel of the Privileges and Elections Subcom-
mittee.
I ask you, first of all, whether there is any demand or request
that you appear before the subcommittee.
Senator McCarthy. I do not so interpret it.
Mr. Williams. I ask you whether or not
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Williams, the letter does contain the word
"invite"; does it not?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
What is your point, Mr. Chadwick ?
Mr. Chadwick. The word has not been used. You eliminated two
other words not used in the letter.
Mr. Williams. Do you want to conduct your cross-examination on
this now ?
Mr. Chadwick. No, sir, Mr. Williams; that was directed to you.
I do not cross-examine you.
Mr. Williams. I ask you w^hether or not. Senator, your presence
was requested or demanded ?
Senator McCarthy. No, it was not.
Mr. Williams. By this letter of November 7 ?
Senator McCarthy. It was not.
Mr. Williams. I ask you whether or not you were in the District
of Columbia at the time that that letter was sent to your office and to
refresh your recollection on that, I will show you a letter dated Novem-
ber 10, 1952, which purports to be a response to that.
Senator McCarthy. No, I was not, and Mr. Cotter was so informed.
Mr. Williams. And that was a letter dated November 10, 1952, is
that correct ?
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Mr. Williams. And that letter is signed by Ray Kiermas, admin-
istrative assistant to Senator McCarthy ?
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Mr. Williams. And that letter was introduced as exhibit 40 by Mr.
Chadwick.
Senator McCarthy. Correct.
Mr. Williams. Now, Senator, I want to call your attention, sir, to
a letter which was introduced by Mr. Chadwick, dated November 21,
1952, signed by Senator Hennings, sent to the Senate Office Building,
room 254, Washington 25, D. C., and ask you whether or not you
received that letter which purports to have been delivered by hand
on that date ?
Senator McCarthy. It was apparently received on the 28th of the
month.
Mr. Williams. Wliere were you on November 21, 1952 ?
Senator McCarthy. Up in northern Wisconsin, deer hunting.
Mr. Williams. Can you tell us where you were in northern
Wisconsin ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 299
Senator McCarthy. I believe it was at Kings Gateway, out beyond
the Eao^le River.
Mr. Williams. Now there appears as exhibit 42 in the Hennings-
Hendrickson-Hayden report a telegram which is undated wherein you
are requested to appear.
Did you ever receive such a telegram ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Williams, in connection with this, I would
like to compliment counsel for the committee in that they very
honestly gave us information which we did not previously have;
namely, that this was marked "Not sent." It was not sent. The inclu-
sion of this in the Hennings-Hayden-Hendrickson report was com-
pletely dishonest. That wire, as indicated on it, was not received.
The Chairman. Senator McCarthy, there is something that stiikes
me there right now. You draw the conclusion that that was com-
pletely dishonest. It could have been a mistake, could it not?
Senator McCarthy. I do not think it was a mistake.
The Chairman. You seem to draw the conclusion outright that
this is completely dishonest.
Mr. WiixiAMs. I would like to have the wire that we gave to Mr..
Chad wick so that we can see the difference between the two wires..
The Chairman. There is a possibility that that could have been
included. Sometimes those things happen, that exhibits do sometimes
get mixed up. I want the record to show whether you think it is
completely dishonest because it is in there.
Senator McCarthy. I think to put in the record, Mr. Chairman,
the wrong wire when they had the wire that they sent, I frankly think,
that was dishonest.
The Chairman. Well, you have your opinion.
Senator McCarthy. There is always a possibility of a mistake.
The Chairman. Surely.
Mr. CiiADwiCK. Mr. Williams, may I say that such investigation
as we could make did not elicit a copy of that other wire. I think
it was the Senator's own letter that led us to call for the original.
Mr. WiiJLiAMS. Now, I want to ask you this, when you received
the wire that is dated the 22d of November 1952, which is addressed
to Appleton, Wis.
Mr. CiiADwiCK. The telegram of the 21st was apparently received
in Appleton on the 22d.
Senator McCarthy. I received that when I returned to Washing-
ton the 28th day of November, I believe.
May I say, Mr. Williams, this is the first correspondence that might
indicate a request to appear. It placed a time limit in which I was
not in the city. The staff knew I was not in the city. I received it
after the time limit had expired.
Mr. Williams. November 21, I ask the committee to judicially
notice, was a Friday. The letter which purports to have been deliv-
ered by hand on November 21, and which has been introduced in
evidence, was delivered on a Friday to room 254, Senate Office Build-
ing. In that letter there is a request of Senator McCarthy to appear
on Saturday, November 22, through but not later than Tuesday,
November 25.
This wire of November 21, 1952, which was addressed to Appleton,.
Wis., requests Senator McCarthy to appear tomorrow, Saturday^
November 22, but not later than Tuesday, November 25.
52461 — 54—^20
300 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
I would like to read the two wires in evidence which are in dispute
here since the question has been raised on that.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Williams, if I were permitted to, I would object
to reading this other wire, because it was never offered in evidence.
Without objection from me, you might read the telegram which yon
have in your hand, if you want to. It has already been read once.
Mr. Williams. I would like to read, Mr. Chadwick, the wire which
appears in the Hennings-Hayden-Hendrickson report.
The Chairmax. You mean the one that was not sent ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir ; because I think the sharp contrast between
the two wires is indicative of something which might interest the
committee.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Mr. Williams. I read this, Mr. Chairman, because this is the wire
on which the report is based, and which the report makes reference
to when it calls attention to the request made of Senator McCarthy to
appear, and that is in evidence, that part of the report. This wire
The Chairman. It is in evidence for the limited purpose. If you
want it for any other purpose, of course, you would have to offer it
for those purposes.
Mr. Williams. This wire is addressed to Senator Joseph R.
McCarthy, room 254, Senate Office Building, Washington, D, C. :
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy,
Appleton, Wis.
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy,
Hotel Desert Hills, Phoenix, Ariz.
Reference is made to our letter of November 7 again inviting you to appear
before this subcommittee and to the reply of your administrative assistant
received today. You are advised that this committee does not consider the
aforementioned letter of your assistant to be an adequate or satisfactory answer.
This committee desires an opportianity to examine you under oath to clarify, if
possible, certain questions that have been raised on facts at liand, particularly
with respect to your intricate financial transactions and certain of your activ-
ities. Your continued refusal to cooperate with the committee in its efforts to
carry out the instructions of the United States Senate would appear to present
a conscious
and this is what it says :
a conscious disregard by you for the Senate's authority and a desire to prevent
a disclosure of the facts. Failure to receive a reply by return wire that you will
appear before this committee in executive session no later than November 20
can only be construed as a final refusal to testify under oath before this com-
mittee.
That is the wire that concededly was never sent.
The Chairman. And, of course, under those circumstances it would
probably not be the action of the committee. It may have been pre-
pared by a clerk or someone else, and it may have been prepared by the
committee. We just don't know.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, might I bring to the attention of
counsel that from an examination of that letter, it was not being pre-
sented, because it was evident in it that the dates referred to could not
liave bsen cons' stent with the text of the other correspondence that was
introduced. To support my conclusion, I may say that that particular
telegram had been prepared on the 14th of November; and the reason
for that is that the first sentence refers to "the reply of your adminis-
trative assistant, received today."
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 301
Now, if you refer back to the exhibit which was marked exhibit 41
in the Hennings report, you will note that there is a paragraph w^iich
starts :
On November 14, 1952, the subcommittee received the following communication,
dated November 10, 1952.
And then there follows the letter from Ray Kiermas to Mr, Cotter,
to which reference has already been made.
If you put those two together, it makes clear that this telegram,
which was prepared on the date that the reply from the administrative
assistant was received, it must have been prepared on November 14,
1952, The thing which led me to suspect the telegram was the fact
that it called for a reply not later than November 20, and yet it appears
in sequence after the letter of November 21. Obviously, it could not
have been properly in sequence, asking for an appearance on November
20, and appear after a letter of November 21. That was what led me
to try to identify the date of it; and that, in turn, led to the discovery
that the copy of the telegram was in the files and marked "not sent''';
and that, in turn, led to the request of Senator McCarthy, or of you, as
his counsel, to see if there was a telegram that intervened between
November 21 and that date, and what telegram it was that was referred
to in the letter by Senator McCarthy, which was marked exhibit 45 —
•or rather, it was that telegram wdiich is referred to apparently in the
letter by Senator McCarthy, dated November 28, that led to the call
for the telegram which you did produce, and which has previously
been put in evidence.
Mr. Williams. The significant thing about the wire in the record
is that, of course, it is contained, and from reading it, it appeared, as
you pointed out. Senator Case, that it was sent on September 14 ; and
ill the report
Senator Case. Pardon me, November 14.
Mr. Williams. I am sorry ; November 14. Then, the report, of course,
makes a reference to this wire and suggests that Senator McCarthy
was given an opportunity to appear on the 22d, 24th, and 25th of
November; whereas we now find that the wire was sent on November
21, that it was sent to a place where Senator McCarthy was not, and
that it gave him an opportunity to appear "tomorrow or Monday
or Tuesday.'' Tomorrow being Saturday or Monday or Tuesday,
Avhereas, in fact, he did not get it until November 28.
Wliy I think this is significant is because the letter of November 21
and the wire of November 21 are the first requests by this committee
of the Senator to appear. The charge is here that he failed to comply
with the request of the committee to appear. We find that there was
no request that was communicated to him, wherein he was given a
date to appear which ]ie could comply with. That is why I offered
this; and I think it is most relevant and germane to this particular
charge.
The Chairman. You mean the telegram that was unsent?
Mr. Williams. No ; I man the telegram that was sent. Senator.
The Chairman. Oh, received?
Mr. Williams. Or received 7 days later, because they sent it to a
place where he was not.
The Chair3Ian. I am talking about the fact that the committee
received it, not that somebody else received it; and, as I say, we
received that in evidence.
302 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
]\Ir. Williams. Yes.
The Chairman. No niatter where it was sent to, it is in the record.
Mr. Williams. That is correct.
The Chairman. A)id the other was not accepted in evidence — was
not even offered.
Mr. Williams. That is correct. I was just pointing out what I
considered to be the significance of these wires. I should now like
to offer
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Williams, do you recall that, at the time we
were covering this, I stated that I was unable to accept the endorsement
on that telegram as proof positive that it had not been sent, and I
reserved the right — and I reserve it now — if further reference comes
up to it, to produce it at the time, before us ? And I will state to you
that I have not yet found any other evidence of its sending.
Mr. Williams. In other words, you are saying, I take it, Mr.
Chadwick, that you still may want to offer evidence that this myste-
rious wire, of no date, which appears on page 99, may have been sent?
Mr. Chadwick. Yes, sir; but that, at some time tomorrow or the
day after, if you msh to show it to the committee, I assure you it
would be within its power to consider it. I assure you we will do that.
At any rate, I hope the committee will pursue the thing further.
The Chairman. At one stage in this proceeding, I think there was
an opportunity to stipulate that these letters had been sent, but counsel
did not accept the stipulation.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Case.
Senator Case. In view of the fact that the telegram — what purports
to be a telegram — has been read into the record, and the question was
raised with regard to the use of the word "prevent," at one point in
the telegram, and I think it is only fair to point out that a copy of the
telegram — which is not a copy, but which is its original typewritten
copy, which is marked "not sent," which was obtained from the files
of the committee — at that point it uses the word "reflect" ; so that it
reads :
"Would appear to reflect the wishes, disregarded by you," and so
forth. And then I call attention to the fact that on page 99 of the
printed form of the purported telegram, the word "prevent" appears
directly above — or, let me say, the words "to prevent" — appear directly
above the words "to prevent disclosure of the facts," and it seems a
fair deduction, to me — and I have read proof of copy at different
times — that actually that is a typographical error there, in that the
words "to prevent" are put in that line of type, whereas the copy from
which it aparently was obtained would read, "to reflect."
I do not know that this is material, but in view of the fact that we
are trying to straighten out the record here, I think that should be
called to the attention of the committee.
The Chairman. All right. Proceed.
Mr. Williams. I will ask you now. Senator, so there will be a record
on this, whether or not you have received, at anytime, this wire which
appears as exhibit No. 42 in the Hennings-Hayden-Hendrickson
report.
Senator McCarthy. The answer is "No."
Mr. Williams. At no time ?
r ■ HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 303
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Mr. Williams. Did you ever receive a request to appear before this
-committee, after the wire that you got on November 28, which gave you
dates of November 22, 24, and 25 ?
Senator McCarthy. The only re^T^est I er^er received to appear be-
fore the committee was a wire sent to Appleton, Wis., where I was not,
incidentally. I received it when I got back to Washington on the 28th.
The time limit for my appearance was, I believe, the 25th; so I could
not have complied with this. I received no other request at anytime to
appear before this committee.
I might say that Mr. Cotter, on the committee
The Chairman. That, of course, is hearsay. That last statement,
and it will go out.
Senator McCarthy. Well, let me say, Mr. Chairman, I did not re-
ceive that wire that was sent on the 21st; to the best of knowledge, I
was up deer hunting, up in northern Michigan. I could not receive
the wire. My letter indicates I received it on the 28th, which was
3 days after the time limit they set. So that the only request I ever
received to appear was during a 3-day period of time when I could not
possibly have appeared. That is the only request to appear.
The Chairman. Well, of course, you said all that once before. It
will all be stricken out, except what you have stated in your last state-
ment.
Mr. Williams. Now, did you answer this wire, which has been
identified by Mr. Chadwick, dated November 21 ?
Senator McCarthy. No, I did not answer the wire offered by Mr.
Chadwick, because I never received that. You have a wire, Mr. Wil-
liams, which I answered, which as received — which was sent to Apple-
ton, mailed to my office in Washington. I answered that wire. I do
not believe that has been read into the record. . I said :
I just received yonr wire of November 22, in whicli yon state you would like to
have me appear before your committee between November 22 and 25. As you
were informed by my
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman.
The CiiAiR^iAx. AVill the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the
Senator from South Dakota for an observation or to ask a question?
Senator McCarthy. I yield.
Senator Case. I simply wish to point out that Senator McCarthy
said that he had not read the letter or telegram that was read by Mr.
Chadwick, and actually he did not receive the telegram that was
offered by Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chadwick did not offer the letter or
the telegram that appears in the Hennings-Hayden report. At the
time, Mr. Chadwick called attention to the fact that he was not to
appear
Senator McCarthy. Just so there is no confusion, I did not receive
the wire marked "not sent." I received the w^re Avhich we have offered.
Senator Case. And that is the wire which Mr. Chadwick offered.
The Chairman. And that was produced by you. Senator.
Senator McCarthy. I did not know Mr. Chadwick offered that.
The Chairman. Yes, it is in the record.
Senator INIcCarthy. I am sorry. I am sorry I did not know he had
offered that.
304 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Chadwick. I cnll attention to the fact that the telegram seems
to be dated the 21st as if from Washington, and on a receipt stamp, it
is in Wisconsin, on the 22d. I think, when you refer to a telegram of
the 22d, which is the exact date of the telegram, you are necessarily
referring to a telegram dated Washington, November 21.
Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir. May I apologize, Mr. Chadwick. I
didn't know you had offered that wire.
I just received your wire of November 22 in wliich you state you vv^ould like
to have me appear before your committee between November 22 and 2.5.
As you were informed by my office prior to tlie time you sent this wire, I
was not expected to return to Wasliington until Thursday, November 27, on which
date I did return.
Sincerely yours,
This was sent to Hennings.
May I say, Mr. Chairman, this was the only request that I ever re-
ceived at any time to appear before the conmiittee.
It was sent to Appleton. I was not in Appleton. I did not receive
it until the 28th. Therefore, I could not possibly have appeared, and
they never extended to me any subpena or order to appear after that
time.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. AVilliams, will you tell me the date of that
letter you just read again ?
The Chairman. And will you; place the copy in the record?
Mr. Williams. November 28, 1952.
The Chairman. I take it you have a carbon copy of that?
Mr. Williams. That is what I have.
The Chairman. Place that as an exhibit so we will have the con-
tinuity.
Have you marked it ?
We will place it in evidence at this point as McCarthy exhibit No. 4..
McCarthy Exhibit No. 4
November 28, 1952.
Senator Thomas C. Heknings, Jr.,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.
Dear Senator Hennings : I just received your wire of November 22 in which
you state you would like to have me appear before your committee between
November 22 and 25.
As you were informed by my oflice prior to the time you sent this wire, I was
not expected to return to Washington until Thursday, November 27, on which
date I did return.
Sincerely yours,
Joe McCaetht.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I assume we can receive back
all of these exhibits because I assume I will be investigated again
after this committee is through.
I would like to have them back.
The Chairman. I can't bind anyone in the future as to whether you
will get them back or not, but I assume, if you are investigated again
they will be on hand.
Senator McCarthy. Thank you.
Mr. Chadwick. May I inquire from the stenographer whether he
has identified the letter just read by Senator McCarthy from copy,
a letter dated November 28, 1952, as exhibit 3, McCarthy ?
The Reporter. I have not. I will.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 305
Mr. Williams. At any time did you receive a request to appear
before or after these two exhibits, a letter and a wire ?
Senator McCarthy. I never received a request either before or after
this wire.
Mr. Williams. At any time did you receive a subpena before or
after November 21 and 22?
Senator McCarthy, I did not.
Mr. Williams. Did you have any conversations with Senator
Gillette regarding a subpena?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, I did.
Mr. Williams. What did you tell him
The Chairman. Now, first
Mr. Williams. Regarding the subpena ?
The Chairman. Name the time and place, so we will have a record
of it.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I can't name the time. I can
name the place.
The Chairman. You can give it with reference to the occurrences
happening.
Senator McCarthy. I talked to Guy Gillette on the floor of the
Senate, told him that I would not appear unless I was ordered to
appear, or siibpenaed. I forget which word I used. I told him I
had no desire to appear before that committee and that his extending
an opportunity meant nothing to me.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. When was that. Senator, with reference to these
last telegrams, the one in November 1952
Senator McCarthy. It would have been considerably before that
time because it would have been during the session of the Senate while
Gillette was chairman.
The Chairman. Well, it would have been in 1951 or 1952?
Senator McCarthy. In 1952.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I would like to pass into a new mat-
ter. I see the hour is late and I was wondering if you would recess at
this time.
The Chairman. Just as a matter of housekeeping now, working out
the schedule, are you in a position to tell us about how much more time
you would require ?
Mr. Williams. I tliink that we can complete this direct examination
in maybe half an hour.
I would like to haye an opportunity to go over some of these matters
with the Senator. Maybe we can expedite that.
The Chairman. I see.
Some of the members of the committee want to make arrangements,
some appointments.
Mr. Williams. We can do it tonight, if you want. I mean I am
passing into a new matter, and we have been adjourning at this time.
T didn't know what your disposition was.
The Chairman. If we could continue to sit a little longer, we would
appreciate it.
Mr. Williams. All right.
The Chairman. However, if it is going to work a hardship on you,
we will recess now.
306 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator McCarthy. It will not.
The Chairman. Proceed, then.
Mr. Williams. Did you have a conversation with Senator Hend-
rickson regarding the report that was filed by this committee ?
Senator McCarthy. I did.
The Chairman. Name the time and place.
Senator McCarthy. Pardon ?
The Chairman. I say, give us the time when this happened, and the
place where it happened.
Senator McCarthy. It was the night the report was filed. I don't
recall that date.
The Chairman. Was that in January, January 9, 1953 ?
Senator McCarthy. I don't recall the date tlie report was filed, Mr.
Chairman, but 1 called in the night the report was filed and talked
to him over the phone.
Mr. Williams. That was January 2, 1953, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. January 2?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
The Chairman. You mean the date of this conversation ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. The date the report was filed, as I under-
stood your
Senator McCarthy. That was the date of the conversation.
Mr. Williams. Wliat conversation did you have with Senator
Hendrickson regarding the report ?
Senator McCarthy. I called Bob up and pointed out to him that
they were stating facts that were wrong, and I asked him whether or
not he was going to sign that report.
I told him I tliought it was completely dishonest to sign a report
that was factually wrong, that I didn't "argue with any conclusions
which he arrived at based upon correct facts, but I didn't like to have
him state the facts improperly.
At that time he said he was signing it, but that he would not agree—
and I think I can quote him verbatim, because it impressed me very
much — that he would not agree insofar as the report differed from
the proven facts.
Mr. Williams. He would not agree. What do you mean by that?
Senator McCarthy. In other words, he would sign the report,
but that he would not agi'ee with it insofar as it differed from the
])roven facts.
I thought this was a fantastic ]:>osition for a man to take in a semi-
judicial position, who says, "I will sign the report," meaning I ap-
prove of it, but then .saying, "I do not agree insofar as it differs from
the proven facts."
I said to him, "Bob, have you read the report? ^Vliy don't you sign
a minority report, then, pointing out where the facts are wrong?"
And he said, "I haven't time "to read the report as of now."
Mr. Williams. Thereafter did you make the remark that has been
put in evidence in this case concerning Senator Hendrickson?
Senator McCarthy. I either made that remark, or one substan-
tially the same as that.
Mr. Williams. Wlien that was made, were you referring to what
he had told you on the telephone concerning his actions in relationship
to this report ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 307
Senator McCarthy. Yes, yes ; I was, and I referred directly to his
position on that report.
Mr. Williams. I would like to offer at this time, Mr. Chairaian,
the Congressional Eecord, or, in the alternative, to ask this committee
to judicially notice the Record insofar as Senator Flanders' remarks
are concerned concerning Senator McCarthy on Jiuie 1, June 11, July
20, of 1964.
I have no desire to burden the committee by reading that material,
but I think it is germane here in consideration of the issues involved
in the fourth charge.
The Chairman. May 1 ask if you have reference now to the speeches
that Senator Flanders made on the floor of the Senate while the
McCarthy-Army controversy was being heard ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You are not asking for permission to have them
all printed in the record, are you ?
Mr. Williams. Well, I was asking for that permission in lieu of
reading them here.
The Chairman. I am inquiring as to
Mr. Williams. I don't like to add to the size of this record, but I
feel that they are so germane to the issues here that they should be
before this committee when it makes its consideration of these charges.
The Chairman. There may be some doubt as to their relevancy
but I think on the theory that you seem to be moving on, on the provo-
cation— is that the guide you have in mind ?
Mr. Williams, Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I think that while this committee may possibly — I
can only speak for myself, however — may be in some doubt on the
weight to be given to the charge with respect to Senator Flanders,
at the same time we should either have it in the file or in such a way in
the record that there won't be any question about where the matter is
stated and so that it can be easily referred to by the Senate.
Senator Case. May I make a suggestion?
I would suggest that the s])eech of Senator Flanders, or speeches, if
it was more than one, which antedated in point of time the remark
which Senator McCarthy is said to have made about Senator Flanders
in one of the charges, be put in. At least, I think the record should
include the speech by Senator Flanders which was made before Sena-
tor McCarthy made the remark attributed to him. I don't know if
the record needs to be burdened with the speech made afterward.
The Chairman. I understood they were all made before.
On the theory that you are offering them, that they were provoca-
tion, it would have to be before to be
Mr. Williams. My recollection is. Senator Case, that the newsman
who testified in here, testified that he showed the final copy of the
speeches to which I have referred to Senator McCarthy before tii«
colloquy took place which has been read into evidence her^
Senator Case. Anything that was heard before,
Mr. Williams. I realize that.
Senator Case. To support the question of provocation. I was under
the impression that Senator McCarthy's alleged statement was mad*^
fairly early during the exchange.
Mr. Williams. I have not offered the numerous speeches that Sen-
ator Flanders has made, nor the press releases he has issued each day
308 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
diirino; the liearin*^ beause I felt that only things that antedated this
"wero germane.
The Chairman. The Chair understood that they did antedate.
]VIr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I am willing to admit them. The only thing T was
asking about is the. mechanical job of getting them before the Senate.
They are not too long and we can have them included as part of the
record and save all the argument.
They will be received.
(The speeches referred to are as follows:)
Statement of Senator Ralph E. Flanders on the Floor of the Senate
June 1, 1954, Faces 6976-6977, Daily Record
colossal innocence in the senate of the united states
Mr. Flanders. Mr. President, I propose for a few minutes to address this l)()dy
on tlie subject of the colossal innocence of the .iunior Senator from Wisconsin
[Mr. McCarthy].
I am not using the word "innocence" in the meaning of freedom from guilt
for no question of guilt is involved. Rather the meaning is that of the blithe
heedlessness of the young, who blunder innocently into the most appaling situ-
ations, as they ramble through the world of adults. Perhaps the best illus-
tration of this kind of innocence is to be found in a popular cartoon series
published daily under the title "Dennis the Menace."
Our busy Senator does get us adults into all kinds of trouble. His construc-
tive activities consist largely in pulling personalities out of the FP>I tiles and
displaying them under the television lights. This is certainly a labor-saving
operation, but it is not his only activity. Besides this, and while doing tliis,
he spreads division and confusion wherever he goes. Note, for instance, the
foreboding he inspires in our fellow citizens of Jewish blood and faith. Among
them this is well-nigh universal, in spite of tlie fact that some of his closest
associates are Hebrews. In seeking the origin of this foreboding, I have been
led to remember the part the Senator played in the investigation of the Malmedy
massacres, and the strange tenderness he displa^red for the Nazi ruffians involved.
Perhaps this would not have been enough to perpetuate foreboding, but his
anticommunism so completely parallels that of Adolf Hitler as to strike fear
into the heart of any defenseless minority. We sliould always remember, by
the way, that communism, nazism, and other dictatorships resemble each other
far more closely than any of them resembles the free world into which we were
born, and in which we hope that our children and grandchildren will live.
It was not the Jews alone who had i-eason to be troubled. The former chief
of staff of the Senator's committee, without a word of rebuke from his superior,
charged the Protestant ministry with being, in effect, the center of Communist
influence in this country. Here the attack was on a vigorous, indignant majority,
and the chief of staff had to go.
But the ghost of religious intolerance was not laid. Clearer and clearer evi-
dence came to light of the danger of setting church against church. Catholic
against Protestant. At a recent communion breakfast of the New York police
force, the Senator made a characteristic speech, blaming the Pentagon for not
compelling the release of the remaining prisoners of the Chinese Communists.
He did not say how this could be done short of renewing the war. Then he
referred to his own proudest achievement — the detection of the pink dentist.
Loud cheers from most of the audience — others silent.
Then Monsignor McCaffrey went into a eulogistic oration on the public service
of our Senator. More cheers and silences.
Cardinal Spellman entered during the Monsignor's introduction and shook
hands with our Senator. He arrived lat;^ and left early, but he did shake hands.
Did this mean that the imprimatur of "nihil obstat" had been set by the church
on these debonair campaigns to divide Americans from each other on religious
lines? It looked like a pretty serious business.
But soon, thank God, from Cliicago another voice was heard. It was that of
a high and respected memlter of the Catholic Church, Bisho]) Shell. He said that
our Senator is doing more harm than good, and is dividing the United States
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 309
instead of uniting it in a cause that of itself is supported by every good citizen.
Continuing, the l)ishop said :
"An America which has lost faith in the integrity of the Government, the
Army, the schools, the cluirches, the labor unions, and most of all an America
whose citizens have lost faith in each other — such an America would not need to
Mother about being anti-Communist ; it would have nothing to lose.
"Such an America — "
He added —
"would have nothing to recommend it to freedom-loving men — nothing at all, not
even the shining image of its victorious junior Senator from Wisconsin."
Thus it liecame evident that Dennis the Menace had driven his blundering ax
deep into the heart of his own church.
His success in dividing his country and his church is paralleled by his unpar-
alleled success in dividing his own party. While only a minority leader, his
following is faithful and loud. This again raises uncomfortable comparisons
with dictators elsewhere in the world. Not so long ago our Senator made one —
just one — Republican speech. It was extreme, but it contained some painful
truths. There were hopes that he might rejoin the party. But he soon dissipated
these hopes, and instead resumed his ax-happy efforts to split it.
He has achieved the incredible .success of persuading Republican Senators into
a detailed and relentless search for some significant evidence of subversions in
the Republican administration — and this in an election year. The search has no
limits in minuteness or altitude. It reaches into the White House itself.
The cooperating group in the Senate is not large. It is not completely hyp-
notized. It is led on by the pitiful hope that some magic means may be found
whereby Dennis the Menace will be transformed into a Republican asset.
Meanwhile, the investigation goes on and on. There are new synthetic and
irrelevant mysteries served up each day, like the baker's breakfast buns, delivered
to the door hot out of the oven. But the committee has not yet dug into the
real heart of the mystery. That mystery concerns the personal relationships of
the Army private, the .staff assistant, and the Senator.
This hubbub centers on the Army private. What is it really all about? His
usefulness as an investigator is continually asserted, but never documented.
Let him also be investigated. When he is released for committee work, what
does he do hour by hour? Whom does he see? What material does he analyze?
What does he report? These questions are important and iinanswered.
Then, there is the relationship of the stalf assistant to the Army private. It
is natural that he should wish to retain the services of an able collaborator, but
he seems to have an almo.st passionate anxiety to retain him. Why?
And, then, there is the Senator himself. At times he seems anxious to rid
Iiimself of the whole mess, and then again, at least in the presence of his assist-
ant, he strongly supports the latter's efforts to keep the Army private's services
available. Does the assistant have some hold on the Senator? Can it be that our
Dennis, so effective in making trouble for his elders, has at last gotten into
trouble himself? Does the committee plan to investigate the real issues at stake?
Let us now leave these interesting domestic details and look at the worldwide
strategy of communism. Let us begin by remembering that a while ago the
Senator from Maine (Mrs. Smith) was denounced by the Moscow press as an
enemy of the people — that is, of communism. I have myself been honored by the
same accolade. If the junior Senator from Wisconsin has ever been attacked
by Pravda, it has not come to my attention.
In every country in which communism has taken over, the beginning has been
a successful campaign of division and confusion. Race is set against race, party
against party, religion against religion, neighbor against neighbor, and child
against parent. Until lately we have lieen free of that. We are so no longer.
We have marveled at the way in which the Soviet Government has won its mili-
tary successes in Asia without risking its own resources or its own men. It has
been willing to continue the conflict until the last Chinese Communist is killed.
What we are now seeing is another example of economy of effort and expansion
of success in the conquest of this country for communism. The preliminary
campaign is successfully underway. One of the characteristic elements of
Communist and Fascist tyranny is at hand, as citizens are set to spy upon each
other. Established and responsible government is besmirched. Religion is set
against religion, race against race. Churches and parties are split asunder. AH
is division and confusion.
Were the junior Senator from Wisconsin in the pay of the Communists, he
could not have done a better job for them.
This is colossal innocence, indeed.
310 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Statement of Senator Ralph E. Flanders on the Flook of the Senate,
June 11, 1954 (pp. 7594-7595, Daily Record)
IN contempt of the senate
Mr. Fla'ndeus. Mr. President, there has coine to my liaiuls in the last few-
days a committee print of the iuvestijiations of Senators Joseph R. McCarthy and
William Benton, pursuant to Senate Resolution 1.S7 and Senate Resolution .'504 of
the 82d Congress. This is not the tirst time that I have heard of this material.
A bootlegged edition was sent me many months ago, but since I do not patronize
bootleggers in any commodity I paid little attention to it. This publication, how-
ever, was official, and its contents are such that I feel they must be taken into
account.
The charges against the junior Senator from AVisconsin were sununed up in
six questions, which the committee worded, as follows :
"Whether under the circumstances it was proper for Senator McCarthy to
receive .$10,000 from the Lustron Corp.
"Whether funds supplied to Senator McCarthy to fight communism or for other
specific purposes were diverted to his own use.
"Whether Senator McCarthy used close associates and members of his family
to secrete receipts, income, commodity and stock speculation, and other financial
transactions for ulterior motives.
"Whether Senator McCarthy's activities on behalf of certain special interest
groups, such as housing, sugar, and China were motivated by self-interest.
"Whether loan or other transactions Senator McCarthy had with Appleton
State Bank or others involved violations of the tax and banking laws.
"Whether Senator McCarthy violated Federal and State Corrupt Practice Acts
in connection with his 1944-46 senatorial campaigns or in connection with his
dealings with Ray Kiermas."
I now quote from the first two full paragraphs on page 10 of the subcommittee
report :
"In Senate Resolution 187, this subcommittee had before it, at the outset,
merely the issue of determining the merits of Senator Benton's charges relating to
Senator McCarthy's fitness to sit in the Senate. As indicated. Senator McCarthy
was invited to attend subcommittee hearings on six occasions to present his
explanations of the issues raised in Senate Resolution IN" and the investigation
made pursuant thereto. Three of the invitations were extended prior to the
Senate vote on April 10, 1952, and three invitations were extended subsequently.
Senator McCarthy should have known that the most expeditious way to re-solve
the issues would have been to appear before the subcommittee to make such state-
ments and refutations of the charges as he saw fit. For reasons known only to
Senator McCarthy, he chose not to accept this course, but to charge that the
allegations were a smear and that the subconmiittee was dishonest and doing the
work of Communists. Between October 1951 and April 1952 he refused to honor
the invitations of the Subcommittee on Pi'ivileges and Ejections on the grounds
that it lacked jurisdiction and that the members of said subcommittee were dis-
honest in their motives for insisting on any investigation, which, he contended,
was solely because of his exposure of Communists in Government. Subsequent to
April 10, 1952, and in the face of the Senate's GO-0 vote confirming the integrity of
the members of the subcommittee and its jurisdiction to investigate the matters
Involved Senator McCarthy continued to reject the invitations of the subcom-
mittee to appear before it for the piu'pose of presenting testimony in explanation
of the issues raised by the investigation, and continued his attack upon the
members of the subcommittee.
"Such action on the part of Senator McCarthy might appear to reflect a di.sdain
and contempt for the rules and wishes of the entire Senate body, as well as the
membership of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections."
It is surely clear that the junior Senator from Wisconsin treated the members
of the subcommittee, Messrs. Hennings, Hayden, and Hendrickson, with contempt.
The Senate, on April 10, 1952, by a GO-to-0 vote, confirmed the integrity of the
members of the subcommitte and its jurisdiction to investigate the matters in-
volved. Therefore, the original contempt of the junior Senator from Wisconsin
extended to the whole Senate.
It is no defense to call the charges a smear. A smear is a mo.st annoying thing
and one which is perhaps — I would not speak definitely — not unknown to the
junior Senator from Wisconsin. But there is this about a smear : It can be
removed by a dry-cleaning process which involves a vigorous application of the
truth. That process the Senator was unwilling to apply.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 311
Mr. Welker. Mr. President, will the Senator from Vemaont yield to me?
Mr. Flanders. I yield.
Mr. Welker. Does tlie Senator from Vermont have any information that the
junior Senator from Idaho served also on that committee?
Mr. Flanders. He was a member of that committee, as I recall.
Mr. Welker. Does the Senator from Vermont realize that the Senator from
Idaho resigned from that committee on the ground and for the reason that it was
a political smear?
Mr. Flanders. I would ask the Senator from Idaho to wait until he hears my
dissertation on the subject of smearing.
Mr. Welker. I shall be happy to do so. I am sorry I interrupted the Senator.
Mr. Flanders. That is quite all right.
Mr. President, as I was saying, there is this about a smear : It can be removed
bj a dry-cleaning process which involves a vigorous application of the truth. That
process the junior Senator from Wisconsin was unwilling to apply. The smear
remains. Of course, there are some character discolorations which are not
smears. They may be the outward evidence of inner corruption. I>ady Macbeth
f oiuid this out when she was smeared with the blood of Duncan and cried out :
"All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand."
The Senator has quite evidently placed himself in the contempt of his peers
and will so remain until he dry cleans his smears. He should be given a reason-
able length of time to purge himself by this means before the Senate takes further
action.
To indicate what the action should be, I am sending to the desk at this time
a motion which I will ask the clerk to read "distinctly with a loud voice that
the people may hear," as the minister is admonished to read in the ancient English
prayer book. For this occasion we want no rapid, indistinct mumbling of the
words.
The Presiding Officer. The motion will be read.
The LEfiisLATi\'E Clerk. It is moved —
"That Senator McCarthy be separated from the chairmanship of the Com-
mittee on Government Operations, and furthermore be prohibited from being
chairman or vice chairman of any subcommittee thereof."
INIr. Flanders. INIr. President, it is intended that the motion lie on the table
until sufficient time has been given for the Senator from Wisconsin to purge
himself of contempt, by answering specifically and in detail the charges in the.
numerous questions I have read. To allow this time is only fair to him.
When I call up the motion, I shall hoiie for a goodly show of hands on this
side of the aisle in support of the request for a yea-and-nay vote.
The Presiding Officer. Without objection, the motion which will be reduced
to writing in the form of a resolution, will lie on the table, as requested^by the
Senator from Vermont.
The motion of Mr. Flanders was ordered to be printed in the form of a resolu-
tion ( S. Res. 261) and to lie on the table, as follows :
"Resolved, That Senator McCarthy be separated from the chairmanship of the
Senate Committee on Government Operations and furthermore be prohibited from
being chairman or vice chairman of any. subcommittee thereof."
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, this morninor there was a colloquy
concerninjr certain portions of our defense which were ruled out. I
do want to offer certain factual information on one of the charges
that was made here, namely, the charjje re^ardin^ the so-called FBI
document. Insofar as I can proceed witliout transgressing your
ruling, I shall do it. I shall address myself to the charge of spuri-
ousness of this document and interrogate this witness on that subject
because I feel that does not transgress in any way your ruling.
The Chairman. What you have brought before us at the time was
not on that question at all.
Mr. Williams. No,
The Chairman. You may proceed.
We will rule on the evidence as it is presented.
Mr. Williams. Senator, the document which you held in your hand
and which you passed to the committee counsel, Ray Jenkins, in the
312 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Army-McCarthy hearings on May 4, 1954, I ask you to examine
that, sir.
Is that it?
Senator McCarthy. It is unnecessary. I have examined it in
detail.
Mr. Williams. When you passed that to Mr. Jenkins, did you pass
it to him as a document whicli purported to give certain information
whicli you in fact liad received in 1953?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, that's right.
Mr. Williams. Does this document on its face show that materials
have been deleted which related to security information and clas-
sified information ?
Senator McCarthy. It does very definitely do so.
Mr. Williams. Now, I direct your attention to paragraph 5 of this
document, the one alluded to by Mr. Collier as the one paragraph
wherein the first change takes place in his comparison with the
memorandum in the FBI files, and I ask you if in the fifth paragi-aph
it does not clearly indicate that materials have been omitted of a
security nature.
The Chairman. Just before you answer that, the document you are
now talking about is the one that has been marked "Classified"?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
The Chairman. And was ruled to be classified in the other hearing,
the Army controversy hearing?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Just a moment. And is that the two and a fourth
page document?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. The reason I am calling this to your attention, I
am going to permit Senator McCarthy to give his interpretation of
it as lon!7 as he does not reveal any so-called classified information.
Obviously, we cannot cross-examine him as to wdiether he is giving a
correct interpretation of the letter because if it is classified, we cannot
even examine it.
Mr. Williams. I know of no way. Senator
The Chairman. And the evidence so far that has been placed in
the record from the Army-McC^arthy hearing record indicates that
it was classified and so considered by the Attorney General and by
Mr. Hoover of the FBI.
Mr. Williams. I know of no way to defend the charge of the
spuriousness of this document
The Chairman. I am not objecting to your proceeding that way,
but I am Dointing out that we will be unable to cross-examine on that
point.
Mr. Wii,LiAMS, Now
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Ervin.
Senator Ervin, If Mr. Williams M'ill pardon tlie suggestion, it
would tend to defend the charge of spuriousness, to show how Senator
McCarthy came into the possession of these documents and to show
that he accepted it as a valid document
Mr. WiLi.TAMS. I intend to ask those questions. Senator Ervin, if
I am permitted to conduct the examination. I was just about to go
into that aspect of the case.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 313
Of course, Senator McCarthy will be available for full cross-exami-
nation on that subject. That is the purpose of my asking these ques-
tions now ''o tliat there can be a full cross-examination on that.
The Chairman. Of course, under the rules of this committee, it
is more or less informal. Whether it is presented at all or not, the
conmiittee, might want to know about it anyhow, even if you didn't
oiler it.
Mr. WiLi.iAMS. I ai)preciate your position, sir, and I intend to
cover that ground.
Xow, I ask you again whether or not this document
The Chairman. Just a moment.
I take it for granted, of course, the press is very curious about
this, but I hope they will not attempt to take a look at it, because if
it is marked classihed even though it was testified here that there
were 35 copies, possibility of 35 copies circulated, we are still going
to observe, do all we can to keep it from being — just a moment —
being read by ])eople who haven't any right to read it.
We are going to observe the ruling of the other committee on that
and to follow their steps,
I am not reflecting on anybody, but I just wanted to make that
clear.
Mr. Williams. I ask you whether or not the first paragraph to
which Mr, Collier referred when he said that there had been changes
in the content'^ of this document in comparison with the FBI docu-
ment, that the Department of Justice does not reveal that the security
information therein has been deleted.
Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir; that statement on the background
of a certain individual has been deleted. It is a parenthetical expres-
sion.
May I say, Mr. Williams, in answer to what the Chair said, that
Mr. Hoover has never classified this document. Mr. Hoover classi-
fied the 15-page document which contained the security information.
This document has never been classified by Mr. Hoover.
The Chairman. The Attorney General passed on it and said it
was classified and refused to permit it to be used or disclosed.
Mr. Williams. I ask you
The Chairman. And we are relying on that. We are not trying
to go back of it and start all over again. We take what the other
conunittee did as evidence.
Mr. Williams. Now, Mr. Collier's testimony — and this is a matter
of record in this proceeding — is that the first four paragraphs were
in all respects identical and that there was a change in paragraph 5.
That is why I addressed my question to Senator McCarthy as to
whether security information had been deleted from paragraph 5.
Now, with respect to paragraph 6, Mr. Collier's testimony was that
that was in all respects identical with the document to which Mr.
Hoover compared it.
Is that right?
Senator McCarthy. That's right.
Mr. Williams. Now, I ask you whether or not paragraph 7 does not
clearly indicate on its face that security classified information has
been deleted therefrom?
Senator McCarthy. By paragraph 7, Mr. Williams, you refer to
this section ?
314 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Senator McCarthy. Yes, it shows that all of the security infor-
mjition in regard to the Fort Monmouth radar employees has been
deleted.
Mr. Williams. Then I call your attention, sir, to parao-raphs 8
and 9 and the testimony in the hearinojs have been that they were
in all respects identical with the paraf^raph in the document to which
they were compared; is that correct?
Senator McCarthy. That's correct. And let me say this, Mr.
Williams, that I hope the members of the committee examine this
document. They will find that there is no security information in
it. They Avill find tliat this is a warninc; of subversion at the radar
laboratory.
Mr. W1L1.1AMS. I don't see, Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. Question has been raised as to the propriety of the
Senator i-eadiniz: certain i)ortions. It has been ruled in the other
committee that it was classified. It was regarded as a classified
document.
The Attorney General said it could not be made public and I do
not think the committee is going to read this document under the
circumstances.
Mr. Williams. Then I ask, Mr. Chairman, if at this time, this
committee will not look at this, I don't see how it can pass upon
whether it is spurious or not. I just don't know how^ to defend our
charge without showing it is, showing you that it is not spurious,
that it purports to be just what it is, something with the security and
classified information deleted from it.
And it is clearly deleted from it and there was no attempt to indi-
cate otherwise, because that is right on the face of it.
The Chairman. Well, of course, I say all of this I could strike out
as being completely incompetent because the document itself would
speak for itself, but under the peculiar circumstances pertaining to this
entire transaction and the document itself, the committee does not feel
it ought to do that. We allowed you to testify in a general nature with
respect to it.
Now, we will take under advice the matter you have offered, if you
have offered it. Evidently you are going to offer it into evidence or you
{^re wanting to read it.
Mr. Williams. I want to read it, sir, because there is no security
information in it.
The Chairman. Are you offering it in evidence ?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
The Chairman. At this moment I will say, on behalf of the com-
niittee,that we will take the matter under advisement.
Mr, Williams. Thank you.
The Chairman. And in the meantime, before we decide whether
to read it or not, the possession of the document will be left where it
came from, Senator McCarthy, in his possession.
Now, if the committee has another view on that after our delibera-
tions in executive session, we will make that known.
Mr. Williams. I may say to you, Senator, and it seems to me that
I am making an admission that nobody else made, that I have the docu-
ment in my possession, and I have to say to you that I have read it
because I knew not how^ to defend this document against the charges,
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 315
and I can tell you that everything that is of a classified or security
nature is manifestly deleted herefrom, and I urge you with all the
power in my command to look at it.
I do not, of course, ask you to drop the charges of the spuriousness
of the document because the committee cannot look at it. I hope you
will look at it so that this thing can be cleared up.
The Chairman. We have great respect for your judgment and your
sincerity and honesty, Mr. Williams, in saying that we are not going
to take a look at it even though you have made that statement. 1 hope
you will not think we are reflecting on you.
Senator Ervin. I want to say this to Mr. Williams. I think some-
times folks have got to know what a word means, in what sense they
use the word. You used the word "classified." In other words, it
might be susceptible to two meanings. The first is, it might be re-
stricted to the method by which intelligence is obtained or it might
mean both that and the information which is obtained as a result of
it. In what sense do you use the word "classified" so that I can under-
stand your position ?
Mr. Williams. There are no investigative techniques revealed
herein. There are no informants revealed here. There is no informa-
tion here that in my opinion can in anywise affect the security of the
country.
Senator Ervin. Well, suppose the Intelligence Service, either the
FBI or the Central Intelligence Agency, conducted an investigation
by their techniques and discovered that John Doe in the Government
was a Communist. Would that fact that John Doe was a Communist
be classified information, or would merely the technique which they
have used, by which they made that discovery, be classified informa-
tion ? I want your understanding.
Mr. Williams. I wouldn't say that the fact as to whether John Doe
was a Communist would be classified.
I would agree with you, Senator Ervin, that the document and the
FBI files which contained that information might well be classified.
Senator Ervin. Do I understand you to mean, then, that the part
of the document or report or data collected by the FBI that John Doe
was a Communist would not be classified information?
Mr. Williams. No, sir. I say I will certainly readily agree with
the position you are taking. Senator, that a document in the FBI files
which contained the facts of Communist affiliation of Joe Doe or
William Roe might very well be classified, and I would accede to
that proposition.
Senator Ervin. Is it your position that if I were a governmental
efnployee and I had access to such a document and I copied a state-
ment from the document that John Doe has been discovered to be a
Communist, is it your position that what I said about it, that would
not be classified information ? I admit that the paper would be classi-
fied, but would the information be classified ?
Mr. Williams. I will not make that statement. Certainly if I have
access to information, as a Government clerk, to classifiecl informa-
tion, and I copy wdiat is in fact classified information, it does not be-
come less classified by reason of the fact that I simply copied it.
Senator Ervin. Just explain it to me. Maybe my impression of it
IS not correct. Explain to me what you mean by classified informa-
tion, so that I may comprehend it.
52461—54 21
316 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. I think you and I mean the same thin^. We mean
information which atfects the national security which has been re-
(stricted by Executive order and illustrative of which would be in-
formation containing investigative techniques, names of informants,
names of individuals w^hose identity might thus not be known for one
reason or another in the context of our national security considera-
tions.
Senator Ervin. In other words, what I am trying to get concrete,
and an understanding of because I am not certain that 1 understand
myself, but I have to understand your meaning to understand your
position.
I understood from the testimony that was offered that some of these
paragraphs were identical with paragraphs in some original docu-
ment in the FBI.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And that those paragraphs made some statements
Vidth reference to persons, alleged Communists, in the installation at
Fort Monmouth.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Then you use tlie word to mean that the result of
the technique, when divorced from the technique, is not classified?
Mr. Williams. I think maybe I can say it tliis way simplest ; I agree
pretty much with Vice President Nixon in his statement wherein he
said that he did not regard a certain FBI letter which was not com-
plete and from which certain portions had be excerpted, when he said
he did not regard it as classified because the investigative technique,
the names of the informants, the modus opeitindi of the FBI was in
no way revealed as a result of the excerpts whicli were taken from it.
I think I pretty much subscribe to his view on that.
Senator Ervin. My understanding of it is this : Suppose the FBI
had documents, the hrst paragraph of which states that Joe Doe, a
Communist, held a certain governmental position, and the second para-
graph said that we found out that John Doe, a Communist, held an
important position by tapping his wires.
According to your understanding, the first paragraph would not be
classified information, but the second paragraph would.
Mr. Williams. I can well imagine that situation obtaining. We
have a document and the conclusion of that document that is reached
is tliat John Doe is a Communist, and then the background of the
information on which the investigation had obtained is set out. We
know this because w^e have interviewed A, B, C, D, E, and G, his
neighbors. A says this; B says this; C says this; D says this; E says
this ; and then we have tapped his wires. We have put a mail cover on
him. We have had him under surveillance.
I would wholeheartedly agree that all that would be classified in-
formation by any concept of the term. I think that the conclusion
that is stated is an area which is more of a twilight zone by far. I do
not think you can say with any certitude that that would he classified
information on just the facts that you set out.
Senator Ervin. Notwithstanding the fact that a document contain-
ing the two paragraphs might be so stamped by the FBI ?
Mr. Williams. The document as a whole would be certainly classi-
fied, say, as confidential.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 317
Senator Ervin. Thank you.
Senator Case, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Case.
Senator Case. I have in my hand the printed copy of Senate Re-
port No. 2507 of the 83d Congress, 2d session, which is entitled "Re-
port of the Special Subcommittee on Investigations for the Committee
on Government Operations, United States Senate."
It is a report of the committee in the Army-McCarthy matter, and
in the part of the report which is signed above the dated signature of
August 21, 1954, signed by Senator Karl E. Mundt, as chairman;
Senator Everett M. Dirksen; Senator Charles E. Potter; Senator
Henry C. Dworshak ; Senator John L. McClellan ; Senator Henry M.
Jackson ; and Senator Stuart Symington. In other words, the part of
the report which was signed or appears above the signatures of all
members of the committee, I note this paragraph, and I present it to
the attention of the counsel, because the counsel has been talking about
the question of the spuriousness or the alleged spuriousness of the
document.
Mr. Williams. Wliat page are you reading from, sir ?
Senator Case. Page 76. This is the first full paragraph on page 76,
tlie fifth line from the top of the page. It reads as follows :
The next morning Mr. Robert A. Collier, a member of Counsel Jenkins' staff,
testified that he had been to see Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, who had examined the
copy of the letter proffered by Senator McCarthy. On the basis of that examina-
tion, Mr. Hoover informed Mr. Collier that the McCarthy "copy" was "not a
carbon copy or a copy of any communication prepared or sent by the FBI to
General Boiling on January 26, 1951." (May 5, 1954) The FBI did have a copy
of an interdepartmental memorandum prepared and sent to General Boiling on
that date, but that copy and the McCarthy copy were "materially different in
form." The FBI copy was a 15-page document ; the McCarthy copy was 21^4 pages.
The substance of the FBI copy and the McCarthy copy "contained information
relating to the same subject matter and * * * in some instances exact or
identical language appears in both documents." (^lay 5, 1954) Indeed, the
McCarthy copy was identical in words and paragraphs and in the listing of
names with the FBI copy. However, the FBI 15-page document made no
evaluation of the information about these individuals, while the 2^4 page
document did so.
That is the end of the paragraph. One question in my mind: I
was hoping, while counsel was dealing with this question of authen-
ticity of the document, that he would take up the question of the
form of the document as bearing upon whether or not it was a true
copy of an original true document prepared by the FBI or by any
other competent investigative body.
Mr. Wiixiams. I think that probably appears of record in the
hearings. I, of course, have not seen the other document that has
been referred to, but my recollection of the testimony is quite clear,
that in form the document to which so much reference has been made,
the 15-page document instead of being in letter form, is in memo-
randum form to Major General Boiling, Department of the Army,
Assistant Chief of Staff, Washington, D. C, from J. Edgar Hoover,
Director, FBI.
I am just giving you the form from my memory now. Whereas
the 15-page document has that form, this document has the form of
a letter. In other words, it has "Major General Boiling, Department
of the Army, Assistant Chief of Staff, Washington, D. C, Sir : " and
318 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
then it has the name "J. Edijar Hoover, Director, FBI," appearing at
the end, and the name as in the i orm of a letter.
Senator Case. As in the form of a letter.
Mr. WiixiAMS. Yes, sir.
Senator Case. With an address and a signature?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir; and another change is this, that I believe
that the 15-page docnment said "confidential via liaison," while this
says "personal and confidential via liaison."
Now the rest of the document is identical in all respects with the
15-page document save only that materials have been excerpted from
it, and this document shows on its face that those materials have been
excerpted from it, so my point is, Senator, that it is not anything
it does not purport to be.
In other words, it does not purport to be something it is not.
Senator Case. You mean it does not purport to be a copy of an
original letter?
]NIr. Williams. No, sir ; because it shows right on its face that these
materials have been deleted, you see.
Senator Case. Does the document you have in front of you have the
word "copy" at the top in red letters?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Senator Case. Is that a part of the imprint on the copy paper, or is
that stamped on it?
^Ir. Williams. It is part of the imprint on the paper.
Senator Case. It is part of the second sheet notification.
]\Ir. Williams. Typical copy sheet but, parenthetically, in this docu-
ment it is clearly shown that materials are deleted which appear in the
document from which this was prepared.
So that my point is, this does not represent itself to be something
that it is not, except as you pointed out. Senator, that the form is
different. The form is different.
Senator Case. It purports to be a copy of a letter rather than of a
memorandum ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
In other words, if you call something that says "To" and "From,"
a memorandum, that starts out, "Sir," and is signed by the person
from whom it comes, a letter, therein it is different.
Senator Case. Oh, it is a different copy?
Mr. Williams. In form.
Senator Case. I have in my hand a copy of an ordinai-y second sheet
with the word "Copy" on it, and it appears on a piece of paper like
that [indicating].
Mr. Williams. That is right.
I will be glad to show you this. Senator, after the hearing.
Senator Case. I am in the same position as Mr. Jenkins.
The Chairman. Just one or two questions the Chair wants to ask
and then he will yield to Senator Stennis, who would like to ask some
questions.
I would like to ask of Senator McCarthy :
Is this the identical document which was exhibited and offered in
evidence in the Army-McCarthy proceeding? [
Senator McCarthy. It is. I am not sure it was offered in evidence!'
It was given to Secretary Stevens and he was asked whether or not
this was a copy of something in the Army files.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 319
I don't think it was offered in evidence.
The Chairman. Well, there was some examination-
Senator McCarthy. It is the identical copy offered to Bob Stevens.
The Chairman. That you took out of your possession and handed
to him, or had handed to "him ; is that right ?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
The Chairman. Now, when there was some examination of it, there
was an indication in the record that you had in your hand, you and
Mr. Cohn, or somebody who was working with you, another copy of
tliat same document.
Senator McCarthy, No.
The Chairman, Was that a fact? Did you, or did you not, have
such a copy?
Senator McCarthy. We did not.
The Chahiman. You were not using anything in your hands that
purported to be a copy of this as the basis for your examination ?
Senator McCarthy. No,
The Chairman. Do you know whether there are any other copies
of this in existence, or not?
Senator McCarthy. The Justice Department asked for a copy.
The Chairman. Do you know it?
I asked you a question. Do you know it ?
Senator McCarthy. The answer is "Yes" ; the Justice Department
asked for a copy of this letter. We made a copy ; gave it to the Justice
De|)artment.
The Chairman. That was to Mr. Brownell, himself?
Senator McCarthy. It was given to one of the members of the staff
of the Mundt committee, who w^as instructed to get it for Mr. Brownell.
The Chairman. I see.
I recognize Senator Stennis.
Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask Mr. Williams:
Did I correctly understand you to say this document you have there
on the table, now in Senator McCarthy's hands, has never been classified
as a secret document, or confidential document? Is that correct?
Mr. Williams. Well, Senator, I would have to answer that question
this way : The material which I sincerely believed are the classified
portions of the original document have been eliminated and deleted
from this.
So, I must answer that the parent document was classified, because
Mr. Hoover said it was, but I must sdy to you it is my sincere opinion
that that portion of that document which provided the basis for
classifying the original document has been deleted.
Senator Stennis. That question, leads then, to this primary ques-
tion
Senator McCarthy. Could I interrupt there. Senator Stennis ?
This would appear, from its face, to be a boiled-down version of an
FBI document, which was used for the purposes of distribution.
As you know, when the FBI sends out a report that is classified,
normally it is boiled down and the security matter deleted, and the
balance of the document sent to the proper security officers.
If I were to guess about this, I would say this is the document that
is in the files of the various Army security officers.
320 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator Stennis. The primary question is : Now, Mr. Williams, do
you actually offer this docum.ent there, which we are talking about in
evidence here for the record?
The Chairman. That has been done.
Senator Stennis. Is that your position?
The Chairman. That has been done.
Mr. Williams. I would say this : I sincerely believe, Senator Sten-
nis, there is no classified information in this — there is no information
in this document as it now stands — that affects the national security
and, therefore, I offer it in evidence for this committee to look at in a
consideration of the charge of spuriousness.
Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman, that puts the committee in this
position here : Here is a document no one would lock at on another
committee and someone, a newspaperman, took it down to Mr. Hoover,
the Director c^f the FBI, and he told him if he publisihed it he would
put him in jail ; but still I notice he didn't take that document away
from this columnist, and now we have it published here to Mr. Wil-
liams and he has offered to publish it to us.
I think we ought to get a ruling here. We are to pass on a docu-
ment now that is in a sealed envelope in some Government department.
I think we ought to settle this thing and get a ruling.
The Chairman. Senator, you are dead right and that is whj'- 1 said,
Avhen the offer was made, we would take it under advisement, and all
(his has occurred since that time, if anyone can remember back when
I said that.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Williams, it may be you and I will share a
professional responsibility with respect to this and, as the chairman
said, I have great respect for 3'our opinion. I would like to ask you
this: Is it not^our understanding that there is testimony before this
committee now which establishes — not tends to show, but which estab-
lishes— that Mr. Hoover regards this as a classified document and that
the Attorney General of the United States regards it as a classified
document ?
Mr. Williams. Are you referring to Mr. Winchell's testimony and
his conversation with Mr. Hoover?
Mr. Chadwick. No, sir; not at all. But in the testimony in this
case derived from the testimony in the Muiidt subcommittee.
Mr. Williams. Would you read to me that to which you have refer-
ence ?
Mr. Chadwick. It will take me a moment to do that.
Mr. Williams. I think I know
Mr. Chadwick. It seems to me you remember. Let me remind
you
Mr. Williams. I think Mr. Hoover wrote a letter or Mr. Brownell
wrote a letter in which he stated he would not permit this letter to go
into the previous record.
Mr. Chadwick. Certainly he did. That is what I am talking about.
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Mr. Chadwick. And, also, Mr. Hoover, as I undei*stand it, said that
this document, this one which you appear to hold in your hand, is a
classified document.
Mr. Williams. Who said that?
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Hoover.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 321
Mr. Williams. I think, Mr. Chadwick, you will find that Mr. Hoover
said that the document in his files was a classified document.
Mr. Chadwick. That is right, sir ; but I think it will be found that
he was also passing on the classified quality of this by reflected light,
so to speak
Mr. Williams. I don't think
Mr. Chadwick. Since it contained in identical form matter from
the 15-page interdepartmental record, that it had the qualities of
classification under their standard of confidential.
Mr. Williams. I gather, Mr. Chadwick, that what you are arguing
to is that this may not be looked at because Attorney General Brownell
has suggested to the last committee that it could not look at it.
Now, I have great respect, sir, for your professional opinion, too,
and I ask you : How in the name of reason, can I defend the charge
of spuriousness if this committee won't look at this document ?
Mr. Chadwick. That, sir, is not my problem, nor necessarily your
problem.
The fact remains the same, that apparently under the laws of the
United States we must investigate it
Mr. Williams. In other words
Mr. Chadwick. Under whatever imposed classification it has re-
ceived, and I merely ask you whether you remembered the Attorney
General of the United States had ruled on it.
Mr. Williams. I know you take a cavalier approach to this, Mr.
Chadwick, that it isn't your problem as to how we defend Senator
McCarthy against the charges, but these are very serious charges to
him and one of these charges is that this is a spurious document and
it is easy for you to be cavalier and say, "I don't know how you are
going to defend against it because I won't look at it, and I'll recom-
mend the committee not look at it," but it presents a very serious
problem to us, sir.
Mr. Chadwick. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. And I don't know how to defend it — and I repeat
it to you, Mr. Chadwick — unless this committee will take a look at
this document.
I certainly can't believe that any rule of reason would say that
six United States Senators couldn't be trusted to look at a 2i/2 page,
2V^ year old, 3I/2 year old, maybe it is, document, which has no more
information about the security of this country than these briefs that
have been filed in this case.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Williams, I said when I started that I realized
we might have a common problem, that there might be two horns
to the dilemma, on one of which you might be impaled, the other of
which I might be impaled.
I merely wanted to clear up whether or not you remembered that
the Attorney General of the United States had ruled, and I call your
attention to the fact that I think Mr. Hoover also ruled, that this
particular document was classified.
I do not say the latter with the assurance that I do the former,
although I firmly believe it is true and it is a matter which you — you
say cavalier — in your perfectly understandable expression of opinion
might have seemed to have ignored.
Mr. Williams. I didn't get the last.
322 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Chadwick. I say it might well be, as it seemed to me, that
your freely expressed opinion that there is no particular sanctity
or protection around this paper might record the fact that this com-
mittee has in its files evidence that the Attorney General has ruled
on it, and I think evidence that Mr. Hoover has ruled on it,
I don't wish to belabor the point.
The Chairman. Just a niiiuite.
I am going to say now I think we have had considerable argument
back and forth. The committee will take this under advisement, as
I previously said. It has now been offered in evidence and we will
have to make our decision.
We have not said we will or we will not. We will consider it.
Mr. Williams. If I may, I could ask one final question here, I
think, and close up this case insofar as I can go by asking Senator
McCarthy :
Was this given to you, sir, as a copy, an authentic copy, of the docu-
ment when you received it?
Senator McCarthy. Every document in tlie Army files, not in the
FBI files, and I have every reason to believe that it was and is a copy
of a document in tlie Army files.
May I just talve 30 seconds, Mr. Williams, to point out that the
importance of this document is that it shows that at the secret radar
laboratories security information ■
The Chairman. Well, now —
Senator McCarthy. Was disregarded for
The Chairman. Just a moment.
Senator McCarthy. Year after year after year-
The Chairman. Just a moment. Senator.
Senator McCarthy. And there was no security-
The Chairman. Until we rule on this, I think you should not make
that statement.
We will go into the ruling on this.
We are not trying any security regulations up there. That is not
a part of this investigation.
This I would regard as a divergence.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman
The Chapman. We will rule on this matter as best we can.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, may I ask : You say this is a diversion. I am accused
of improperly taking a classified document.
The Chairman. I understand exactly.
Senator McCarthy. May I just get my position, Mr. Chaiman
The Chairman. The counsel has been standing for a long time.
Senator McCarthy. I considered your statement as a question. I
think I have a right to answer it.
Tlie reason this was taken — the reason I think it is important is
not because it contains any security information
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Just a moment.
Senator McCarthy. May I finish, please?
The Chairman. Just a moment.
Senator McCarthy. May I finish, please?
The Chairman. You may when Senator Ervin has stated his
position.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 323
Senator McCarthy. All right.
Senator Ervin. The point I am making is that the Senator is telling
something somebody else told him, which would be hearsay evidence.
Mr. Williams. Your objection was that it was hearsay?
Senator Ervin. Yes.
The Chairman. The whole matter, gentlemen, is irregular. There
isn't any doubt about it. We have had to handle this because of the
so-called security stamp that has been placed upon it by Mr. Brownell
and apparently by Mr. Hoover, as I remember it. He asked Mr.
Brownell — in fact, he told them he would have to go to Mr. Brownell
to get any release of it. He felt it was classified information.
Senator McCarthy. I think I should be entitled to finish my
sentence.
The Chairman. Just a moment, Senator.
I say the whole thing is more or less irregular because we have had
to handle it in a different way than we ordinarily would another
document because of that situation. The other committee apparently
felt it was security information and classified and for that reason
they wouldn't handle it. The members didn't even read it, as I
recall.
So we have to give some respect to what the other committee did
about it.
That is one reason why, gentlemen, we want to take it under ad-
visement before we even indicate we are going to take a look at it.
We have to show some respect for at least what a committee of the
Senate has done.
Senator, what I had in mind was this: I don't think you should
go on and explain any further about it until we have taken that under
advisement.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, tomorrow morning could I
have the privilege, not of divulging the contents of this document,
but of giving my position on this document, without interruption?
The Chairman. Well, I
Senator McCarthy. I think I am entitled to that.
It is getting late tonight. I know the members are getting tired,
but this is important to me. They asked that I be censured for hav-
ing this document. I would like to explain why I have this docu-
ment, why I think it should be used. If you don't want to hear
that tonight, then I hope tomorrow morning I can explain my position
on this document, which I consider very important.
The Chairman. I understood your counsel had called your atten-
tion to it and you had, to a certain extent, explained your situation.
Now, we can't say you won't be interrupted. I can't guarantee
that because I don't know what you are going to say and we do have
certain rules, and I certainly would interrupt you if I thought you
were going outside the rules and getting into a completely diversion-
ary matter; but, on the whole, we have tried to be just as courteous
as we can, Senator. We want to give you the broadest, the fullest,
opportunity.
So tonight let's leave the matter where it is and we will cross the
bridge tomorrow — when we get to it.
Senator McCarthy. Very well.
Senator Case. Before you recess, I want to make a request.
324 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The Chairman. Senator Case.
Senator Case. First, Mr. Chairman, may I ask Avhether, in connec-
tion with the presentation and incorporation in the record of the com-
mittee print of the so-called Hennings-Hayden-Hendrickson report,
whether a certain sheet which is labeled ''Subconmiittee Report on
Senate Resolution 187 and Senate Resolution 304,'' is included in the
record as a part of that report ?
The Chairman. I don't think we determined that matter. The
report as it came to me was a bound volume with a loose sheet inserted.
Now, I did not know whether we made a specific ruling on that or
not. I would have to check back on it.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, I think that loose sheet should be
identified by somebody and its authenticity determined, its authorship
should be determined. Reference has been made to it in the presenta-
tion by the counsel for Senator McCarthy, and attention has been
called to 2 or 3 sentences in it. The sheet itself has no identification
other than the label on it. It bears no names. There could be some
reason for thinking it might have been prepared by the subcommittee
in the 83d Congress rather than by the subcommittee in the 82d Con-
gress, and I would respectfully request that staff take stej^s to provide
for such identification of it and its authenticity.
The Chairman. The Chair will direct the staff to make that in-
vestigation.
Senator Case. And along the same line, permission was given earlier
in the day regarding the letter by Senator Gillette allegedly resigning
from the committee, but the letter was not read into the record ; nor
was it offered as an exhibit by anybody. It seems to me that it should
be incorporated in the record properly, either by reading it in or by
stipulation or by offering it as an exhibit, and then following that,
we should properly accredit the action of the committee, if any was
taken on that matter.
I did not see how we can determine whether Senator Gillette's
resignation was accepted or the committee reduced in size unless we
have some report of the action of the committee.
The Chairman. The staff will work on that as well. There was an
offer of Senator Gillette's letter and, as I recall, the Chair received it.
Now, it can be placed in the record and we can have it. It may be
placed in by having it reproduced in the record from the copy that was
offered, or we may have it read tomorrow.
The committee will now be in recess until tomorrow morning at 10
o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 5 : 03 p. m., the committee recessed until tomorrow,
Friday, September 10, 1954, at 10 a. m.)
HEAKINGS ON SENATE EESOLUTION 301
friday, september 10, 1954
Unitted States Senate,
Select Committee To Study Censure Charges
Pursuant to Senate Order on Senate Resolution 301,
Washington^ D. G.
The select committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 : 10 a. m., in the
caucus room, 318 Senate Office Building, Senator Arthur V. AVatkins
(chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Watkins (chairman), Johnson (vice chairman),
Carlson, Case, Stennis, and Ervin.
Also present : Senator McCarthy ; E. Wallace Chadwick, counsel to
the committee; Guy G. de Furia, assistant counsel to the committee;
John ]M. Jex, clerk of the committee ; John W. Wellman, staff member ;
Frank (xinsburg and Ray R. McGuire, members of Senator Watkins'
staff on loan to the committee ; and Edward Bennett Williams, counsel
to Senator McCarthy, with his associates, Agnes A. Neill and Brent
Bozell.
The Chairman. The committee will resume sessions.
The photographers will kindly leave the room and park their in-
struments outside and we will permit you to come back.
When the committee recessed last night, it had reserved a rather
important question. An offer in evidence had been made by counsel
for Senator McCarthy of a 214-page document which has been the
subject of so much controversy.
The committee reserved this question for an executive meeting. It
has met and it has decided at least to inspect the document prelimi-
nary to making a final decision whether it will be received in evidence.
I realize tliat probably counsel will feel that he cannot very well
go on without a decision being made on that matter, and for that
reason unless counsel does have some matters he can take up imme-
diately, the committee will go into recess to make that inspection and
to decide some other matters of policy.
Mr. Williams. I had two additional questions, Mr. Chairman, I
wanted to propound on this phase of the case. I may as well ask them
here now and conclude this line of inquiry.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOSEPH E. McCARTHY
Mr. Williams. Senator, did you give the document in question to
Walter Winchell?
Senator McCarthy. No.
325
326 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. Did anyone on your staff or connected in any way
with your staff or your office, to your knowledge, give the document
to Walter Winchell?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. Williams. I have this document here now.
The Chairman. Before it is handed to us, may I ask the Senator if,
since the last copy was produced before the committee hearing, the
Army-McCarthy controversy matter, has it been in your possession?
Senator McCarthy. It has.
The Chairman. Has it been available to anyone else other than you ?
Senator McCarthy. No. It has been in my safe, I think, all the time
except that I naturally showed it to Mr. Williams when we were
preparing our defense on this matter.
The Chairman. May I ask again, because I am not sure in my mind
that I got the answer or not. Did you authorize the making of any
copies or did you have any copies made of this for your use at the
hearing ?
Senator McCarthy. No ; a copy was made for the Justice Depart-
ment. They wanted a copy.
The Chairman. That was made by a member of your staff ?
Senator McCarthy. That was.
The Chairman. A stenographer in your office ?
Senator McCarthy. That's right ; my secretary.
The Chairman. So that what we have here and which you have
offered in evidence and which we are now going to inspect for the
purpose of determining whether we are going to receive it is the
document that was given to you ?
Senator McCarthy. The one given to me.
The Chairman. The one given to you as you related to the com-
mittee that sat here on the controversy between you and the Army ?
Senator McCarthy. That's right.
May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if this is received in evidence
the names he deleted ?
The Chairman. We will come to that, Senator. I wish you would
not discuss what is in it until we take a look at it. I think it would
be unwise to do that. I said last night that out of respect to the
committee which had this matter before, out of respect to the Attorney
General and Mr. Hoover, and of the executive department, we felt
that we ought to consider this very seriously. It is no small matter.
I think it is a very important matter. We don't even know the con-
tents, but at the same time we felt, out of respect to them, we should
give it the most serious consideration. That is the reason we are pro-
ceeding very cautiously in this matter because we don't want to do any
single thing that will injure the security of this country, in any way
impede the operations of the forces which have to defend us against
those within and without.
Will you kindly mark it with your exhibit number and initial it,
Senator McCarthy?
(The proposed exhibit was marked "McCarthy Exhibit No. 5".)
The Chairman. You checked that. Senator McCarthy, and you note
that the exhibit mark has been put on there ?
Senator McCarthy. Right.
The Chairman. If you will deliver it in person, Mr. Williams.
(Mr. Williams handed a document to the chairman.)
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 327
The Chairman. This is not the time to read it.
All right, sir, you may proceed with the other questions you
mentioned.
Mr. Williams. The committee may cross-examine.
The Chairman. I think under those circumstances, since this docu-
ment is involved, probably we ought to take the recess now until 1
o'clock until such time as we can make the necessary examination and
rule on these matters before we start cross-examination. Just a mo-
%ient, please. The committee is still in session.
I don't like this disturbance at the conclusion or as we near the time
for recesses. I will say that the press and the audience, the people
who have been attending here, the citizens of the country, have be-
haved very well indeed without a single caution but at this time we
would appreciate it if you would be quiet until we actually recess.
Senator McCarthy. Could I make a suggestion, respectfully, that
there are many other matters which the committee will want to cross-
examine me on, I assume ; would it be j)ossible to proceed with that and
have the executive session over the noon hour so we can maybe get
through with this this week?
The Chairman. I doubt that. The committee thinks that this is
important enough that it ought to make a ruling, so if we want to
cross-examine, we can cross-examine on that or make some disposition
of these charges.
Mr. Williams. I think the Senator's thought was simply if the
cross-examination on this document could be deferred until the com-
mittee has met this afternoon, Mr. Chadwick could go forward with
other matters and we could save time.
The Chairman. The committee is not going to be idle ; it is going
to be as busy as it can be. There are some matters we have to decide
in connection with this investigation. It is not all involved just in
this one phase of it here.
We will now be in recess until 1 p. m.
Mr. Williams. 1 o'clock?
The Chairman. 1 o'clock.
(Thereupon, at 10 : 20 a. m., the committee recessed to reconvene at
1 p. m., same day.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
(Thereupon, at 1 : 35 p. m., the comtaittee reconvened.)
The Chairman. The committee will resume session.
With reference to the exhibit offered, the committee has been in
consultation with the Attorney General. He states that he has reex-
amined his letter to the Mundt committee. He is still of the same
opinion, that the document is a security document and cannot be
declassified.
The committee has decided to receive this document in evidence,
however, with the understanding that the security-protection provi-
sions will be enforced with respect to it.
The individual members of the committee have seen and read the
document. We have discussed it as a committee.
No one else except members of the committee have been permitted
to enter into the discussion, to read, or see, or hear any part of this
document.
328 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The committee is convinced that the document is a security docu-
ment, and the information in it should be kept classified. That means,
of course, that we cannot permit any cross-examination with respect
to the contents of that document and we should not receive any testi-
mony with reference to its contents, I mean, any testimony that can
be made public.
We do that, gentlemen, because of the necessity of protecting the
interests of the United States just as far as it is humanly possible to
do so, and at the same time attempt to carry out the responsibilities
which the Senate placed in our hands.
(Thereupon, the 214-page document referred to was received in evi-
dence as "McCarthy Exhibit No. 5.")
Mr. Williams, Mr. Chairman, I feel that is an eminently satis-
factory way of handling it. Our w^hole purpose has been fulfilled,
simply to get the document before the committee, which is all we had
ever hoped to do, so that the committee would see what we were talk-
ing about in relationship to testimony already offered.
The Chairman. I want to also explain that the committee, in con-
sidering the order of the Senate which placed this matter in our hands,
came to the conclusion that the very language of the order which
says that the committee shall take such testimony as it deems advis-
able, that authority gives us the discretion in a matter of this kind,
and we feel that since the full authority of the Senate is back of us
in this matter, that we have made the only decision that we could make
under the circumstances.
It will be somewhat in the nature of information which is furnished
to the Judiciary Committee of the Senate and other committees of
the Senate with respect to classified information that comes from the
FBI on appointees. Only the chairmen of the committees are per-
mitted to see the files of the FBI when the matters of appointment of
various citizens requiring Senate confirmation are. considered. No
other Member of the Senate gets to see those files.
We think that is a precedent, and for that reason the information
will stay locked in the hearts and minds of the members of the com-
mittee, and the document itself will be placed with the proper offices
of the United States Senate for safekeeping.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman-. Senator McCarthy.
Senator McCarthy. In view of the fact that that is a document
which belongs to the Senate Committee on Investigations, I would like
to discuss with you further the question of whether or not that should
be returned to the files of our committee, but I do not want to take
that up at this time. Time is running out.
The Chairman. Well, we can consider that matter later on when
it is offered and becomes a document in this committee's proceedings,
and it is still within the confines of the Senate and the Senate can
decide what can be done with it.
But we feel that until the matter is entirely disposed of, so long
as we have any jurisdiction in the matter, it should be protected.
Had you finished, in view of this ruling, all the examination of
Senator McCarthy ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Well, then, the staff of the committee will proceed
with cross-examination of Senator McCarthy.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 329
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I have re-
quested my associate, Mr. de Furia, to proceed with this cross-exam-
ination.
The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. de Furia.
Mr. DE FtiRiA. With the permission of the chairman. Senator
McCarthy, I would like to ask this first, sir; I would like to ask some
questions with reference to the case of General Zwicker, if I may.
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Mr. DE Furia. As a matter of biog^-aphy, and because actually I
do not know, would you mind telling me. Senator, how long you
yourself were in the military service?
^ Senator McCarthy. I was in the service a little less than 3 years.
I do not recall the exact number of months.
Mr. DE Furia. In what capacity. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. Why, I applied for enlistment as a private.
I was informed that I was beyond the age. My application was con-
sidered. I was accepted as a first lieutenant, I believe.
Mr. DE Furia. And was that your final rank, sir?
Senator McCarthy. No; my rank now is lieutenant colonel.
Mr. DE Furia. Lieutenant colonel?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. DE Furia. During the 3 years and more of your military
service
Senator McCarthy. It was less than 3 years.
Mr. DE Furia. Less than 3 years ; yes, sir. Was most of that period
taken up by your service as an officer ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. DE Furia. Now, as to your legal and judicial background,
please, understand I think the record should show this, sir, I assume,
sir, that you are a graduate of a law school; is that correct?
Senator McCarthy I am a graduate of Marquette.
Mr. DE Furia. Of which school, sir?
Senator McCarthy. Marquette University.
Mr. DE Furia. Wliat year, sir ?
Senator McCarthy. 1935.
Mr. DE Furia. I have heard it said that you had judicial experience
and unfortunately, I do not know. Would you mind telling us just
what judicial experience you had?
Senator McCarthy. Yes; I was elected circuit judge in 1939.
I took leave of ab'^ence early in ^1942 to enter the service. My
fellow judsres took care of my work.
I was reelected in 1945. I served until I entered the United States
Senate.
Mr. DE Furia. Yes, sir.
Now, is your circuit court a court of record? Were you a judge
conducting trials, sir?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, that is the court of highest original juris-
diction, appellate jurisdiction, over lower courts.
In other words, the court next above that is the final court of the
State. We call it the State supreme court.
Mr. DE Furia. Yes, sir.
Now, I assume that while you were in the military service, Senator,
it was necessary for you to obey military orders ?
Senator McCarthy. It was.
330 HEARmCS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. dE FuRiA. Is it a fair question for me to ask that you always
obeyed the orders of your superiors without exception, sir?
Senator McCarthy. I obeyed them to the best of my ability.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Now, let me ask you a fair question, I think. Senator ;
do you have any personal feeling against General Zwicker, sir?
Senator McCarthy. No, I never met Zwicker before he appeared
on the stand.
Mr. DE FuRTA. And you had never met the general until that morn-
ing or afternoon — I beg your pardon, it was morning — in New York
on February 18, is that correct?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. DE Furia. Since you have criticized him, and I think rather
severely, and I am not entering into the merits or demerits of what you
did. Senator, I take it that the fair inference is that you think his
conduct justified your criticism, is that correct, sir?
Senator McCarthy. Right,
Mr. DE Fukia. Does that mean. Senator, that you really think that
what transpired between you and General Zwicker that day up in
New York actually justified you in criticizing him as an officer who did
not tell the truth under oath and, oh, making some remark about not
having the intelligence of a 5-year-old child?
y I don't remember the exact words.
Senator McCarthy. I didn't say the intelligence of a 5-year-old
child. After I was asked to reread a very simple question, I think 2 or
3 times, I said, "A 5-year-old child could understand that question."
I might say Mr. Williams tested that on a 5- or 6-year-old child. She
understood the question.
' I was trying to get him to answer the question, trying to get him to
quit stalling.
Mr. DE Furia. But the onlv conduct of General Zwicker, as I under-
stand it, which you think justifies your criticism — or I better not even
use the world "criticism" — your statements — with reference to him,
are what transpired in the hearing partly in the morning and partly
in the afternoon ; is that correct, sir ?
Senator McCarthy. That is the only contact I had with General
Zwicker.
Mr. DE Furia. Now, we had a Mr. Harding here who testified that he
heard a remark by General Zwicker that morning, using three initials,
the letters which are sometimes found together.
You didn't even know that that had occurred ; is that right, Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. I did not know that had occurred at the time.
However, his attitude was in complete keeping with the cursing he did
at me that morning.
Mr. DE Furia. Of course, sir, that is your conclusion.
Senator McCarthy. Well, I would be the only one, I believe, who
could conclude that. I was examining him. None of you were there.
Mr. DE Furia. Well, the rules of this hearing are such that I can't
make objections as to competency of evidence, although Mr. Williams
can, but I think that is a conclusion from certain facts that you ob-
served ; isn't that right ?
The Chairman. The Chair observes it is a conclusion, but it has
already been said, and said before, not with respect to this particular
item.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 331
Senator McCarthy. It is the conclusion, Mr. Chairman, based-
The Chairman. Ordinarily it ought to go out, but it has already
been said and we will let it stay.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, it was a conclusion on the part
of everything I observed on the part of General Zwicker that day.
The Chairman. In addition to that. Senator, so I won't have to call
your attention to it again, that was not responsive.
Of course, the first part of your answer was ; the last part was not.
In other words, you were volunteering that last part. It wasn't
called for by the question.
Mr, DE Furia. Senator, in all fairness, wasn't some of your criticism
of (jeneral Zwicker and your statements about him and his attitude
really intended for the benefit of the Army and not General Zwicker ?
Senator McCarthy. Are jou referring to remarks I made during
the hearing or remarks after the hearing, Mr. de Furia?
Mr. DE Furia. Well, I haven't been able to separate them. Let s say
the ones during the hearing. Senator.
Senator McCarthy. I don't think you could call those criticisms. It
is just a method of cross-examination, trying to get the truth.
Mr. DE Furia. When j'ou say to a general, sir, that he is not fit to
wear the uniform after serving in the Army for 35 years, you don't
consider that a criticism?
Mr. Wileiams. I don't think that question is predicated upon the
facts, Mr. de Furia. You have fallen into a very common error.
The Chairman. I think I can correct that in a minute.
I think the record shows, Mr. Williams, that you referred to "that
uniform" or "uniform of a general."
That is Senator McCarthy's testimony; is that right?
Mr. Williams. The reference shows page 153, and I think these
questions should be based upon the record.
Mr. DE Furia. I am basing it upon a sworn copy of the record, Mr.
Williams.
Mr. Williams. May I finish, Mr. de Furia ?
Mr. DE Furia. Certainly, sir.
Mr, Williams. The record shows at page 153 that the statement
which was made was that:
Any man who has been given the honor of being promoted to general and who
says "is not fit to wear that uniform, General."
Now, I think in the interest of an impartial examination, we should
stick to the record and not pose questions that are not predicated upon
the facts.
Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Williams, I will accept that language and hope
I didn't use any other language.
As I understand it, the remark as I have it is :
"You are not fit to wear that uniform. General"; is that correct, sir?
Mr. Williams. No, it isn't correct, Mr. de Furia.
Senator McCarthy. INIay I
The Chairman. Just one at a time.
Mr. DE Furia. Perhaps Senator McCarthy, then, will correct me. I
certainly don't want to make a mistake.
Mr. WiLLiAivrs. I am sure you don't; and if you look at page 153,
you can see what the language is.
Mr. DE Furia, Well, Senator McCarthy can certainly answer my
question and tell me what he thinks the remark was.
52461 — 54 22
332 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator McCarthy. I won't tell you what I tliink it was. I will tell
you what it actually was.
Mr. DE FuEiA. That is preferable, Senator.
Senator McCarthy. I had asked the general whether or not he felt
that a man such as Peress, without repeating the question, a man guilty
of a felony, a felony calling for 5 years' imprisonment — there is no
question about that — a man known to be a Communist
Mr. DE FuRiA. May I stop you, sir. I am asking you now directly :
What was the statement you made about the
Senator McCarthy. I must first give you the question so you will
have the reason for the statement, if I may.
Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Senator be directed
to answer my questions.
The Chairman. Read the question, Mr. Reporter.
I thinlv the Senator should answer the question without volunteer-
ing information not necessary to the answer.
Senator McCarthy. I can save you
The Chairman. Just a moment. We have called for the reading
of the question, sir.
Senator McCarthy. I can save you the trouble.
The Chairman. We wanted the reporter to read the identical ques-
tion that was asked of you.
(The reporter read as follows:)
Mr. DE Furia. Well, Senator McCarthy can certainly answer my question and
tell me what he thinks the remark was.
Senator McCarthy. I won't tell you what I think it was. I will tell you what
it actually was.
Mr. DE Furia. That is preferable, Senator. •
The Chairman. All right. This is strictly confined to the remark.
Senator McCarthy. I will read from page 153
Answer : Then, general, you should be removed from any command. Any
man who has been given the honor of being promoted to general and who says,
"I will protect another general who protected Communists," is not fit to wear
that uniform, general.
I believe that is the pertinent part.
Mr. DE FuBiA. I think. Senator, all three of us are in agreement,
then. That is exactly what I meant.
Now, as I understand it, you are marking a distinction, and you have
testified what you really meant was the uniform of a general and not
the general Army uniform; is that correct, sir?
Senator McCarthy. That is exactly what I said, and that is exactly
what I meant.
' Mr. DE Furia. Now, general — or Senator — excuse me, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Thank you.
Mr. DE Furia. Perhaps someday, sir, we will have a right to ad-
dress you as general.
Mr. W^iLLiAMS. Still colonel, Mr. de Furia.
Mr. DE Furia. Colonel, yes.
Senator, would you mind telling us what was the exact question, that
you addressed to General Zwicker that you say could have been an-
swered by any 5-year-old child ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. DE Furia. Frankly, I have, had some difficulty with it and I
would like to hear the question, if you will give it to us.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 333
Senator McCarthy. Page 152, the last question :
Let us assume that John Jones is a major in the United States Army. Let
us assume that there is sworn testimony to the effect that he is part of
the Communist conspiracy, lias attended Communist leadership schools. Let us
assume that Maj. John Jones is under oath before a committee and says, "I
cannot tell you the truth about these charges because, if I did, I fear that might
tend to incriminate me." Then let us say that General Smith was responsible
for this man receiving an honorable discharge, knowing these facts. Do you
think that General Smith should be removed from the military, or do you think
he should be kept on in it ?
And then that was qualified by pointing out, on page 153, the second
question, tliat I am referring to a general not who is acting under
orders, but wlio originated the order directing the honorable dis-
charge; and then, when the general said he should by all means be
kept on, I made the statement which I made.
I stand by that statement. I feel it very, very strongly.
Mr. DE FuRL\. Senator, before you questioned General Z wicker in
New York, you knew, did you not, that he was anything but a sym-
pathizer with Communists ?
Senator McCarthy. I knew nothing about General Zwicker before
I questioned him.
Mr, DE FuRiA. Didn't you have a report about General Zwicker
from Mr. Anastos, of your staff, and Mr. Juliana, at least as to some
matters connected with the case ?
Senator McCarthy. Not from Mr. Anastos. As I recall, I received
no report from Mr. Anastos. I had received a report from Mr, Juli-
ana.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Excuse me, sir. What is the full name of Mr. Anas-
tos, Senator ?
The Chairman. In tlie first place, he is not on the staff, I do not
believe.
Mr. DE Furia. That may be on a wire. That is the way it was given,
that lie was a member of Senator McCarthy's staff. I may be mispro-
mouncing the name. If so, I am sorry ; you will excuse me.
Senator McCarthy. The first name is George, I cannot give you
the spelling, Jim, can you give the spelling of that ?
Mr. JuTjIana. A-n-a-s-t-o-s.
Mr. DE Furia. Perhaps my pronunciation is wrong ; at least I have
the spelling right. Now, was he a member of your staff?
Senator McCarthy. He was, yes,
Mr. DE Furia. He was?
Senator McCarthy, And is,
Mr. DE Furia. And did lie not gp up to see General Zwicker, or talk
by telephone to General Zwicker, a month or 6 weeks before February
18, 1954?
Senator McCarthy. Well, the only man I got a report from was Mr.
Juliana. Now, it is possible that my chief counsel sent George up there
also, but the report which I received was from Mr, Juliana. I received
no report from Mr. Anastos,
Mr, DE Furia, On February 18, Senator, did you know that there
was a separation order issued with reference to the Peress case?
Senator McCarthy, On the 18th, I knew that, yes.
Mr, DE Furia. Is that the first time you knew it?
Senator McCarthy, No. I believe the newspapers carried a story
about that on the 2d day of February,
334 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. DE FuRiA. Well, what I have in mind is this, sir — and it may-
well be that you don't know, but I will ask the question. Didn't you
know, Senator, that as soon as the Peress separation order came
through to Genei'al Zwicker, he gave that information to Mr. Anastos
of your staff and that was considerably in advance of February 18?
Senator McCARn^Y. I don't know that.
Mr. DE FuiiiA. Did you know that some days before February 18,
Mr. Juliana — I think he was on your staff also — is that correct, sir ?
Senator McCarthy. He was, and is.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Was and is? And what is his first name, sir?
Senator McCarthy. Jim.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Jim? Yes. Isn't it a fact that Jim Juliana got a
copy of the separation order from General Zwicker some days in ad-
vance of February 18, 1954?
Senator McCarthy. He may well have. I woidd have to ask Jim
that date.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Well, you perhaps do not know, Senator.
Senator McCarthy. I do not know.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Is it that you don't know, or you don't remember,
sir ? I was trying to be fair.
Senator McCarthy. I don't know who got a copy of the order.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Do you recall whether Mr. Juliana had the copy
of the separation order in the hearing up at New York in February 18,
1954?
Senator McCarthy. Now, I would have to rely upon my memory.
I think we got a copy of the order from the general that day. It is
possible that Jim may have an order prior to that date.
Mr. DE Furia. Senator, when (general Zwicker was testifying up in
New York, did you know that he was not a free witness, in the sense
that he was bound by orders of the President and orders of the Secre-
tary of the Army?
Senator McCarthy. General Zwicker said that he would not be
allowed to give security information, unless he had the permission
of the Assistant Chief of Staff of G2. He was asked to request that
permission. He refused to request the permission. We, however,
were not questioning him about security matters; we were questioning
him about personnel matters, which would not be covered by the
order. He was not relying upon a Presidential order; he was rely-
ing upon an Army order, which did not cover personnel matters.
Mr. DE Furia. Well, what I am saying. Senator — perhaps I do
not make it clear, sir — if I were called to the stand, I could testify in
one fashion, not being in the Army or not subject to Presidential
orders or orders of the Secretary of the Army. Now, don't you think
there is a difference between my hypothetical case and General
Zwicker testifying before you as an Army officer subject to the orders
of his Commander in Chief and superior?
Senator McCarthy. I think you have to point to the questions
which might come within an order, when I asked him, for example,
whether he knew that this man was a fiftli-amendment Communist.
You and he would be in the same position in answering that, all down
the line. Now, you might get to certain questions that he could not
answer, on account of security ; but in that case, I said, then, "General,
when you ask for permission" — I didn't ask him to give us any security
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 335
information — I said "will you ask for the permission from the
Assistant Chief of Staff of G2?"
You will find this on page 157. Pie said, "No." He said, "No."
In other words, here was a general who said, "I won't even ask for
the permission which I might get."
If you go over these questions, Mr. de Furia, you will find
The Chaikman. I think you have answered the question. Senator.
I do not know wliat you are going to say, but I know counsel hasn't
any opportunity to object, so it is the Chair's duty not to let this get
more than the question calls for, and then go on with another ques-
tion and answer.
Mr. DE Furia. May we have the question read, Mr. Chairman,
please ?
The CHAiRMAiSr. Will the reporter read the question, please?
(The previous question was read by the reporter.)
Senator McCartiit. You would have to refer to specific questions,
because, as to some of the questions, the answer would be definitely
"No"; as to roughly 95 percent of them, and there might be some
questions liere, where they would be in a different category.
Mr. DE Furia. Well, we have read every word of every line of
these proceedings, Senator, and — well, let me ask. Is that your/answer,
sir, to that question ?
Senator McCarthy. That is my answer.
Mr. DE Furia. Now, you have cited a part of the testimony in the
hearing before you, I think, appearing on page 157. Isn't this the
quotation or the excerpt. Senator?
The Chairman. In the meantime, in accordance with the order which you
claim forbids you the right to discuss this case, you will contact the proper
authority who can give you permission to tell the committee the truth about
the case before you appear Tuesday, and request permission to be allowed to
tell us the truth above the —
And there is a line, showing an unfinished statement; and General
Zwicker replied :
Sir, that is not my prerogative, either.
Now, isn't that
Senator McCarthy. I think you have to read the next two lines,
so we will have the full context.
Mr. DE Furia. All right.
The Chairman. You are ordered to do it.
General Zwicker. I am sorry, sir, I will not do that.
The Chairman. All right.
Now, this is the answer ; is it not ?
Senator McCarthy. That is part of the testimony.
Mr. DE Furia. Now, here is a question, Senator, that has been raised
by some of the — question was raised by committee members in these
proceedings that I think ought to be answered, sir.
In examining General Zwicker, were you trying to obtain informa-
tion for legislative purposes, or were you really trying to punish the
general or criticize the Army, sir?
Senator McCarthy. I was not trying to punish the general or
criticize the Army. I was trying to receive information for two
reasons :
No. 1, to expose any incompetence or wrongdoing ;
336 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
No. 2, as a background for possible legislation.
That is the function of the committee. We are not restricted to
getting information merely as a background for legislation.
I refer you to the Reorganization Act.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes, sir. I have to depend, Senator, to some extent,
on my memory at this point, but I believe you said, sir, that General
Zwicker was the most arrogant, most evasive, and most irritating
witness who ever appeared before you.
Can you give us any fact in the record of the proceedings of the
hearing before you, Senator, or out of the record, upon which those
conclusions are based in order to help the committee find the facts, sir?
Senator McCarthy. I think I said, one of the most arrogant, et
cetera.
Mr. DE FuEiA. I think that is correct — again depending on my
memory.
Senator McCarthy. As far as evasive, you will find that originally
the general was asked whether he knew that the major had refused
to answer certain questions. He indicated that he did not know that.
Then later, after cross-examination, he admitted that he knew
that he had refused to answer questions, but indicated he did not
know that he had refused to answer questions about communism.
After further cross-examination, he admitted that he was, using
his language, I am sure I had that impression, namely, that he had
refused to answer questions about communism — no reason for that
evasiveness ; no reasons why he should have taken up our time.
He could have simply told us the truth to begin with. That is one
example.
Now, if you want me to, I will go through all of the testimony.
It will take some time to cite other examples, but there is a very fla-
grant example.
Another case on page 146. I say :
You know that somebody signed or authorized au honorable discharge for this
man, knowing that lie was a fifth-amendment Communist, do you not?
A simple question for the general. Either he did or he did not know
that. His answer:
I know that an honorable discharge was signed for the man.
But his whole attitude was in line with the testimony indicated by
Mr. Harding, which he was cursing me out for exj)osing a Communist.
Mr. DE FuRiA. You say General Zwicker ?
Senator McCarthy. I might sa}', if you liad General Lawton's testi-
mony, you would have a better picture of this.
Mr. DE Furia. We tried to get it, Senator.
The Chairmax. That is a remark not permitted. That will go out,
about General Lawton.
Senator McCarthy. I assume, Mr, Chairman, w^hen you say the re-
mark will go out, it will stay in the record, but you will indicate that
you are striking the remark.
The Chairman. Whatever the mechanics are for it. I think it was
improper response to the question asked by Mr. de Furia.
Mr. DE Furia. Senator, I didn't quite catch the last few words. Did
you say that General Zwicker cussed yon out?
Senator McCarthy. I used the vrord "cursed."
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 337
Mr. DE FuRiA. Cursed you out for doing what, Senator? I didn't
hear, really.
.' Senator McCarthy. Cursing me for exposure of the fifth-amend-
ment— the testimony of Mr. Harding
Mr. DE FuRiA. You are assuming what Mr. Harding said is the
truth, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. I certainly am.
Mr. DE FuRiA. You are assuming that Peress was a proven Com-
munist?
Senator McCarthy. There is evidence tliat he is a Communist, evi-
dence that has not been contradicted. Therefore, I say it is complete-
ly proven.
Mr, DE FuRiA. May I ask, sir, are you not necessarily assuming that
General Zwicker knew that Peress was a proved Communist?
Senator McCarthy. General Zwicker being his commanding of-
ficer knew that he had taken the fifth amendment, No. 1 ; No. 2, he
knew or should have known of the testimony before our committee,
because the Army legal counsel was present at the time it was taken.
An undercover agent for the New York Police Department, Mr.
Adams, who was present, spent the afternoon before Zwicker's testi-
mony with Zwicker. So I think that any logical conclusion is that
Zwicker had all of the information. ,
Mr. DE FuRiA. Now, assuming. Senator, that for the sake of this
question, anyhow, General Zwicker did testify in what we might call
a stilted fashion, don't you think that the fair inference, rather than
to say that the general was deliberately telling an untruth, or stalling,
or distorting facts, that the fair, judicious inferences that he couldn't
do very much else in the face of the Presidential orders and the other
orders of his superiors; isn't that the fair way to look at it. Senator?
Senator McCaritiy. No, Mr. de Furia. When a general comes
before me and first says, "I didn't know this man refused to answer
any questions," then after he is pressed under cross-examination, he
says, "Yes, I knew he refused to answer questions, but I didn't know
he refused to answer questions about Communist activities" — then,
after further cross-examination, he says, "Yes, I know that he refused
to answer questions about Communist activities" — I can't assume that
is the result of any Presidential directive.
We cannot blame the President for that.
Mr. DE Furia. Wliat can you assuine, or what did you assume?
Senator McCaritiy. I assumed that he was trying to duck and
avoid giving me the facts. You couldn't assume anything else when
he changed his story three times.
Mr. DE Furia. I think you went further yesterday. Senator, I
think you said several times that General Zwicker had not told the
truth under oath.
Is that your statement, sir, or not ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. de Furia, when on one page he says, "I
did not know"
The Chairman. Senator, respond to the question.
Senator McCarthy. I will respond in my own fashion, Mr. Chair-
man.
I say, when on one page he says one thing ; he changes his story on
the next page; changes it again on the next page — I would say to
338 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
this committee it is up to it to decide whether he was telling the
truth.
The Chairman. The question asked, as I understood it, was "What
did you say," whether he told the truth, or not. Isn't that the ques-
tion ?
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes. What did the Senator say yesterday? I
understood him to say several times, sir, that General Zwicker had not
told
Mr. Williams. Would you point that out in the record so that we
will have the
Mr. DE FuRiA. I don't want to be interrupted that way.
The Chairman. Just a moment.
Mr. DE FuRiA. The committee has a recollection of whether Senator
McCarthy said that or not. I think that is a fair question.
Did he say it, or did he not say it?
Senator McCarthy. Let me say this, Mr. de Furia : I don't know
what I told you yesterday, but he could not have been telling the
truth on all three occasions.
The Chairman. The answer, of course, is
Senator McCarthy. On two of them, he was — -I think I used the
word — evasive.
I don't think I accused him of perjury.
Mr. DE FuRLv. I don't think you used the word "perjury," sir.
Senator McCarthy. Nor I don't think I used the words "not telling
the truth." I may have used them.
Mr. DE Furia. You say you may have.
Senator McCarthy. I may have ; I don't know.
I would have to check the record.
The Chairman. Let me ask this question at this point: Do you
now say that he was not telling the truth ? That is what we are inter-
ested in.
Senator McCarthy. He misstated the facts. Not telling the truth
may mean that you are willfully committing perjury. I do not accuse
him of that. I say that he told three contradictory stories. Two of
them had to be untrue.
The Chairman. The answer is that you don't believe he went so
far as to be guilty of telling an untruth?
Mr. Williams. I think the answer-
The Chairman. It will have to stand for what it is, but I wanted
to see if I had the right interpretation.
In other words, my memory was that you said he hadn't told the
truth and I wanted to get that clear. I may be mistaken in my mem-
ory of what wns testified to.
Senator McCarthy. Let me put it this way : He was not giving us
the true facts on 2 of the 3 occasions because they were contradictory.
I don't want to say he was lying because that presupposes that he
remembered and knew what he was doing. I don't want to delve into
his mind. It may have been just extremely bad memory from page
to page. It may have been incompetence. I don't know.
Mr. DE FuRL^.. Senator, you described the general at the hearing
as "coy." Just what did you mean by "coy"? To my mind that is
somewhat distant from being evasive or untruthful or some other
pleasant adjective.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 339
Senator McCarthy. My interpretation of that would be evasive.
Perhaps I should have used the word "evasive" instead of "coy." But
on cross-examination you might use one word; I might use another.
Mr. DE Fdria. Very well, sir.
In fairness to this military officer who, justified or unjustified, has
been accused of untruthfulness under oath before a Senate committee,
would you mind pointing out to me just what in the record you say
shows that he was not telling the truth, sir, before you?
Let me say in explanation we have studied the record many times,
sir. We have had some difficulty and perhaps you can enlighten us.
Senator McCarthy. I pointed it out yesterday. I will do it again
today.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes, sir ; I would like to have it all, Senator, if you
don't mind.
Senator McCarthy. On page 146, you will find the day — going to
the bottom of the page, the third last question :
The day the honorable discharge was signed, were you aware of the fact that
he had appeared before our committee?
G'Pneral Zwicker. I was.
The Chairman. And had refused to answer certain questions?
General Zwicker. No, sir ; not specifically on answering any questions. I
knew that he had appeared before your committee.
So we find he says he didn't know that he refused to answer questions.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Will you read that line correctly, Senator? I may
have missed you.
Mr. Wh-liams. He read the line correctly. He says :
No, sir, not specifically on answering any questions.
That is the way he read, Mr. de Furia.
Mr. DE Furia, I beg your pardon.
Mr. Williams. Did you have any misunderstanding about that, sir?
Mr. DE Furia. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. May I have the reporter read back what I read
to be sure I wasn't misquoting the general? Could the reporter
read
The Chairman. You may read it.
Senator McCarthy. The quotation of General Zwicker. Will you
follow this, Mr. de Furia?
Mr. Williams. I know you want to be fair, Mr. de Furia.
Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Williams, I have been fair. I am trying to be
fair, and I don't need to be lectured by you, sir.
Mr. Williams. I am going to try to help you to be fair.
Mr. DE Furia. You can't help me. If I exceed the bounds, I am
sure the chairman and the members of the committee will see that I
don't go across the lines,
Mr. Williams. That is one of my functions, to try to help you to
be fair here in your examination, sir.
The Chairman. Gentlemen, I think both gentlemen wanted to be
fair, so let us be fair.
Senator McCarthy. If the reporter can read back my quotation of
Zwicker, and if Mr. de Furia would follow it and tell me wherein I
misquoted
The Chairman. I have already directed him to read it back. If
you will just stop long enough so he can.
340 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator McCarthy. Very good.
(The reporter read the testimony referred to as follows:)
The Chairman. The day the honorable discharge was signed, were you aware
of the fact that he had appeared before our committee?
General Zwicker. I was.
The Chairman. And had refused to answer certain questions?
General Zwicker. No, sir, not specifically on answering any questions. I knew
that he had appeared before yovu- committee.
Mr. DE FuRiA. I am afraid we are both mixed up ; I don't know. If
I made a mistake, I heartily apologize. I was not following it that
time. It just struck me that you had omitted the word "specifically."
If you had not, you have my humble apology. That is the only point.
Senator McCarthy. I know you didn't do it purposely.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Thank you, sir.
, Senator McCarthy. The next, where he contradicts that — now we
go to the next page, page 147. That is the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 answers from
the bottom.
General Zwicicee. I know that be refused to answer questions for the
committee.
You found there a complete contradiction.
Mr. DE FuRiA. May I say, sir. Senator, that is your conclusion, is
it not, Senator McCarthy ?
Senator McCarthy. Could I read the two answers ?
First is the question by me, which appears on page 146, near the
bottom, in which I had said :
And had refused to answer certain questions?
General Zwicker. No, sir; not specifically on answering any questions. I
knevv that he had appeared before your committee.
And then he says — at page 147, about three-fourths of the way
down the page:
I know that he refused to answer questions for the committee.
I will let the Senators conclude whether that is contradictory, or
not.
Mr. DE FuRiA. May I suggest, sir, that that is a conclusion which
should be made by the committee and they will have to say whether
it is contradictory or not.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, Mr. de Furia asked the Senator to
point out the contradictions, and now when he undertakes to do it
he says that he is drawing a conclusion.
The Chairman. Well, as a matter of fact, I think the question did
call for a conclusion.
In other words, he has to make some kind of a judgment on it as to
whether they are contradictory or not.
Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Williams and I are in agreement
that Senator McCarthy can point out in this record just what he thinks
exhibits the untruthfulness of General Zwicker.
The Cpiairman. Point to the facts without arguing about it, if
you can, sir.
Senator McCarthy. The next question, and I am now reading from
page 147 near the bottom of the page was where I asked General
Zwicker :
Did you know that he refused to answer questions about his Communist
activities?
General Zwickeb. Specifically, I don't believe so.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 341
Now, after further cross-examination on page 148, dropping down
to the last half of the first question, I omitted the first half, because
it is not pertinent :
Now, is it your testimony now that at the time you read the stories about
Major Peress, that you did not know that he had refused to answer questions
before this committee about his Communist activities?
Here he says :
I am sure I had that impression.
Now, he could have told us that previously, earlier. No reason
for his being coy about that.
You asked for another example.
Mr. DE FuRiA. I would like to have them all, sir, please.
Senator McCarthy. Oh, I cannot give them all to you. I will just
give you some here.
On page 148, we were talking about whom I had discussed the Peress .
discharged after my letter calling for his court martial.
Mr. Colin asked :
Who did you talk to? You talked to somebody?
General Zwickek. No ; I did not.
Now, in contradiction of that is the statement of me — strike that.
Let us take this testimony under oath. Testimony of Peress.
The Chairman. You are going to read now the testimony of Peress ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir ; which is in contradiction of this.
The Chairman. You do not mean to say that you base your judg-
ment of General Zwicker by reading what Peress said ^
Senator McCarthy. I had to base my judgment of whether Zwicker
was telling the truth on the other testimony. I knew Peress got a
discharge. I was trying to find out from Zwicker why he got it. I
had the information from my investigators. Peress had testified
under oath as to what occurred in his conversation with Zwicker.
Now, if I may read that, on page 126, he was asked, coming back
to page 125 :
Who is the highest ranking officer with whom you spoke after your appear-
ance before the committee?
]\Ir. Peeess. General Zwicker.
The Chairman. General Zwicker? What conversation did you have with Gen-
eral Zwicker?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. Would you repeat that question, i^lease?
The Chairman. Will the reporter read the question?
(The reporter read from his notes as requested.)
Mr. Pekess. I don't recall the exact word-for-word conversation. I requested
of General Zwicker after the hearing before you on January 30, when I saw him
on February 1, that an inquiry be made into these charges, that the newspapers
had lambasted me with on Sunday and Monday.
The Chairman. Did you tell him whether or not you were a Communist?
Again the record shows the witness conferred with his counsel.
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question on the grounds-
The Chairman. You wanted an inquiry made as to whether or not you are a
Communist; is that correct?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Peress. I wanted an inquiry of my conduct at Camp Kilmer.
The Chairman. Did you want the inquiry to include the question of whether or
not you had been holding Communist meetings at your home, whether you had
attended a Communist leadership school, whether you had been recruiting mili-
342 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
tary personnel there into the Communist conspiracy? Did you want tliat
included?
And there again the witness conferred with his counsel.
Mr. Peress. I could not tell them what to inquire ahout, l)ut I asked for an
inquiry of the charges generally. I didn't specify as to which charges to in-
quire into and which not to inquire into.
So we have a contradiction tliere between two of the witnesses.
You find this type of evasiveness — pardon me, I am afraid that
woukl not be responsive to your question. If you want me to I will
go through and read all of this testimony. It will take quite some
time but I have given you examples of contradictions in his testimony
which were sufficient to show me that he was either willfully falsifying
or being very, very evasive.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Well, General — Pardon me — Senator, the reputation
of this general has certainly been affected and certainly his career
may be affected and I would like you to give us every other specific ex-
ample of untruthfulness if you can find it.
I do not want you to read the whole record. We have it. The
committee has it, but you must certainly have something in your mind,
Senator.
Mr. W1LI-.IAMS. I think, to respond to that question fairly, it is
necessary to go through the record and point out what Senator Mc-
Carthy's conclusions are with respect to all the testimony. I think that
is the only way this question can be answered. It is a very broad ques-
tion, calling for a very broad answer. I do not think he should be
required to answer it any other way.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Very well, sir. I won't press it any further.
Senator, on page 606 of our own committee transcript, which is
volume 5, September 8, 1954
Mr. Williams. You may go right ahead and read it, Mr. de Furia.
We will attempt to get our file copy in the meantime.
Mr. DE Furia. There is a statement by you, sir, and I will read it :
Senator McCarthy. Now, Senator, let me say this, that I had the information,
the official report from my investigator, that the general did not feel that way,
that he felt it was improper to give this man an honorable discharge — I thought
the general was not telling me the truth.
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. DE Furia. Will you explain that, please. Senator?
Senator McCartiit. I will be glad to explain it again.
I had the report from my investigators to the effect that Zwicker
said that it was not his decision to discharge Peress; that he talked
to the Pentagon ; he was given instructions ; he then called Peress in
and urged Peress to accept an honorable discharge at that time, rather
than to wait out the full 90 days, and that Peress acceded to his oppor-
tunity.
For that reason, I felt that Peress was guilty of another untruth,
and no reason why my investigator would misrepresent the facts to
me.
Mr. DE Furia. You said, sir, I believe, that Peress was guilty of an-
other untruth. Did you mean that, sir?
Senator McCarthy. I meant Zwicker.
Mr. DE Furia. Did you really mean by that statement, refreshing
your recollection, Senator, that you knew that General Zwicker had
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 343
protested to his higher authorities on the discharge of this man
Peress ?
Senator McCarthy. AMien he was not under oath, he so claimed, but
when he was under oath, he would not give that story.
Mr. DE FntiA. Well, you knew, did you not, Senator, that he couldn't
give you the story because of the orders of his superiors in the form of
the Presidential directive and orders of the Secretary of the Army ?
Senator McCarthy. That is incorrect.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Why, Senator? Would you mind enlightening me,
sir ?
Senator McCarthy. The orders under which he was operating had
to do only with security matters, not personnel matters.
This was strictly a personnel matter. This could in no way affect
the national security. It could in no way divulge any security in-
vestigation of this man
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you have
Senator McCarthy. If it had to do with
Mr, DE Fttria. Excuse me.
Senator McCarthy, Who was responsible for giving him an hon-
orable discharge before Secretary Stevens could come back and make
the decision himself, removing him from the jurisdiction of the Army,
Mr. DE Furia. Were you familiar. Senator, with the specific Presi-
dential and Army orders under which General Zwicker was attempting
to testify before you?
Senator McCarthy. I w^as familiar with the one that he said re-
stricted him. He read to us an order, an Army order, which said he
could not give security information without the permission of the
assistant chief of stalf of G-2.
Mr. DE Furia. I am trying to find some explanation, if I can. Sena-
tor, for what some person, not any of us, any particular persons, might
think was somewhat harsh criticism or statements about General
Zwicker, and I am asking you :
Was your statement with reference to him affected by your attitude
toward Presidential and Executive orders?
Senator McCarthy. Not at all. Presidential orders didn't come
into this.
Mr. DE Furia. Pardon, sir?
Senator McCarthy. Presidential orders did not come into this. He
was not relying upon any Presidential order.
Mr. DE Furia. Sir, that is your conclusion and interpretation,
whereas General Zwicker had to make that decision for himself, did
he not, at the risk of violating the orders of his superiors ?
Senator McCarthy. The Presidential order deals only with secur-
ity matters, not personnel matters,
Mr. DE Furia. Well, we may have a look at those orders later on,
Senator, but did you ask General Zwicker to see the orders which
required him to testify as he did before you, sir?
Senator McCarthy, Did I what?
Mr. DE Furia. Did you ask him to produce the orders at your hear-
ing in New York and say, "General, where is this order that says
you can't talk or you can't answer some of these questions ? Where
is the order from the Secretary of Defense?"
Was that done ? .
344 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator McCartht. No. I pointed out to him that he was relying
upon an Army order which said that he could testify if he had per-
mission from the Assistant Chief of Staff, and I said, "Will you ask
for that permission, General?"
He said, "No, I will not ask for the permission."
Mr. DE FuRiA. He said that was not his prerogative, did he not,^
Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. No. That is what he said.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Senator, in all fairness, didn't you realize, or don't
you now appreciate, it was more or less of an intellectual problem for
General Zwicker to reply to some of your questions in view of the
fact he was surrounded and restricted by these Presidential orders
and the orders of the Secretary of the Army? Isn't that a fair
statement ?
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. de Furia to which
questions he refers now ? I think we should have that.
The Chairman. Do you wish to ref rame your question ?
Mr. DE Furia. No, sir.
Senator McCarthy. In looking over this transcript, Mr. de Furia^
I can, offhand, find not questions that would be affected by any
Presidential order that would give him any intellectual — what did
you say? Problem?
Mr. DE Furia. Yes, sir, and by that I mean these orders have to be
borne in mind, it would seem to me, by General Zwicker in answering
your questions, and he had to decide for liimself how far he could
go, what he could say and what he couldn't say. Isn't that fair?
Senator McCarthy. No, tliat is not fair. He could refuse to answer
a question on the grounds of a Presidential directive, but he was not
entitled to give an evasive answer or an answ^er which was not the
truth. In other words, if a Presidential order bound him, he could
say, "I cannot answer that because of a Presidential directive."
That would have been respected, that answer, but where he changes
his story from page to page, we can't blame any Presidential directive
for that.
Mr. DE Furia. You say. Senator, that would have been respected ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, I think it would have been respected.
Mr. DE Furia. Didn't you order him to see whether he could not
be released from a Presidential directive?
Senator McCarthy, Not a Presidential directive. There was an
Army order which said he could testify as to security matters if
he first got permission from the Assistant Chief of Staff of G-2.
Now, I felt we were not asking about security matters, but giving
him the benefit of the doubt. I said, "Now, won't you go to the
Assistant Chief of Staff of G-2 and ask for permission to tell us the
truth?":
And I can see no reason on earth why this General should not say,
"Yes ; I will ask the Assistant Chief of Staff whether or not I can give
this information."
That was the way to get the answer to it. He refused to do that.
The Chairman. Senator, a matter that bothers me in connection
with your examination is this : I thought you said — I want to get this
right — that personnel information would not be security information.
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 345
The Chairman. That is your conclusion ?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
The Chairman. Under no circumstances could it be security ?
Senator McCarthy. That is my conclusion.
The Chairman. I see.
Senator McCarthy. It had to do with the discharge of this
individual.
The Chairman. I know, but general security information
Senator McCarthy. This would not be security information in
my opinion, by any stretch of the imagination; but I gave him the
benefit of the doubt in that and said, "Won't you ask for permission
and give us this information?"
That would be assuming it was security information.
He said, "I won't ask for permission."
The Chairman. Of course, the answer was, he didn't think that
was his prerogative to ask for it.
Senator McCarthy. Well, obviously, it was.
The Chairman. Let me ask you this: Did you ever ask for the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, or the head of
G-2 or the President or anyone else that permission be given for
this witness to testify ?
Senator McCarthy. No. The day after he testified things broke
loose.
The Chairman. I know, but
Senator McCarthy. And we held no further hearings. We have
been immobilized ever since. So there was no occasion to ask for
permission. In fact, our committee decided to file
The Chairman. Well
Senator McCarthy. If I may explain, that. Senator, the reason
The Chairman. I think you have explained, it. I don't know how
much more you want to put in.
Senator McCarthy. Well, I was going to tell you the committee,
the special committee which Senator Mundt was chairman of, with
me sitting in, decided that we would conduct no further investigation
of the Army matter until after the Mundt committee had made its
report.
The Chairman. Well, that
Senator McCarthy. The Mundt committee made its report while
this committee was in session, so that I have been immobilized ever
since.
I do intend to try and get the information. I will try to get it
from Zwicker, if I possibly can. I am not too hopeful I will get it.
The Chairman. The reason I brought the subject up at all was
because I wanted to be clear about your position. You have said
several times, as I recall your testimony, since you have been testify-
ing, both on direct examination and also in cross-examination, that
personnel matters were not security matters.
Now, there may be an argument on that score, whether they are, or
are not. I thought you took the general position, and that is the reason
why you were pressing him, because you thought he was being eva-
sive— ^you took the interpretation — that personnel matters were not
security matters and he took the interpretation they were security
matters, and, therefore, he couldn't talk about this personnel record.
Senator McCarthy. No, Senator. You are correct to a certain ex-
346 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
tent, but he answered most of the questions. You will find it is very
seldom in here that he refused to answer. He answered most of the
questions, and my objection w^as not to his refusal to answer, but,
rather, to the fact that he was not giving us straightforward, what
I would consider honest answers, and when I finally got him to give
an honest answ^er on this question of dismissing a man who promoted
Communists — he gave what I assume was his honest answer to that,
although he changed that on the next page.
The Chairman, That is your explanation.
I just wanted to knoM' where 3'Ou stood on that matter because that
is very, very important.
I think the very document we received in evidence indicates that
personnel matters many times can be decidedly important security
matters.
Senator McCarthy. You will find. Senator, by checking this record,
when he got to the point of refusing — we asked him to try and get
permission from the proper authority to give us the facts, and then
he refused to ask for that permission, but you will find he did answer
practically every question.
The Chairman. That is all I have.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Senator, if it were actually true that General
Zwicker had no right under the orders to reveal anything in the
Peress personnel file, do you think you were justified in your state-
ments with reference to him and your criticisms of him?
Senator McCarthy. If he had no right to reveal information, he
could have told me.
Mr. DE FuRiA. That is not quite the question, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Well, I think that is an answer to your ques-
tion.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Is that the only answer you care to give, sir ?
Senator McCarthy. I think that is the answer.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Now, on page 157, Senator, of the printed copy of
the hearing of February 18, I find a question here by Mr. Jones.
Who was he, sir?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jones was the administrative assistant to
Senator Potter.
Mr. DE F'uRiA. And, by the way, at this point, who was Mr. Kain-
ville?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Rainville was the administrative assistant
to Senator Dirksen.
Mr. DE FuRiA. I assume, Senator, that you are telling us that they
were administrative assistants based upon your best knowledge and
belief. Might there be some question about Mr. Rainville?
Senator McCarthy. Not to my knowledge. Senator Dirksen has
referred to him as his administrative assistant. There is no reason
why Senator Dirksen would lie to me about that.
Mr. DE Furia. Very well, sir.
Now, going back to this page 15T, Mr. Jones says to General
Zwicker :
General, what is your considered opinion of this order here forbidding you to
assist this committee in exposing the Communist conspiracy in the Army?
Greneral Zwicker. Sir, I cannot answer that because it is signed by the Pres-
ident. The President says, don't do it and, therefore, I don't.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 347
Mr. Jones continues :
What is your considered opinion of that order?
You see now, here is a perfectly good example of the Communist beins pro-
moted right in the ranks, all because of this Executive order here, in many
respects, where we could not get at these things earlier. What is your consid-
ered opinion of an order of that nature?
Now, do you think, as chairman, you should have permitted a ques-
tion of that kind?
Senator McCarthy, I can see nothing wrong with the question but
I would like to go back a step now. I said he did not rely upon the
Presidential order. I find here, in answer to Mr. Jones' question, he
did rely upon the Presidential order.
I don't tliink he relied upon that in answer to any of my questions.
Mr. DE FuRix\. But General Z wicker replied to Mr. Jones' question,
did he not, Senator, "I won't answer that because I will not criticize
my commander in chief" ?
Senator INIcCarthy. He was not ordered to answer that.
Mr. DE FuRiA. And, yet, you say he was the most evasive and
arrogant, one of the most evasive and most arrogant, witnesses who
ever appeared before you ?
Senator IMcCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. DE Furia. Now, in all fairness. Senator, aren't you sometimes
addicted to hyperbole ?
I am saying that in all kindness, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Am I addicted
Mr. DE Furia. I have personal qualities of language that other
people don't.
Mr. Williams. I don't think that is a proper question, Mr. Chair-
man. I don't think we are here trying anybody for hyperbole.
The Chairman. He will not be required to answer it.
Mr. DE Furia. I am sorry I asked the question ; I shouldn't, sir.
The Chairman. That is all right.
Mr. DE Furia. I meant in all kindness, I assure you.
The Chairman. I recognize that.
Senator McCarthy. I am sure you did.
The Chairman. Being a lawyer myself, I realize sometimes when
we get into the warmth of a cross examination, we will use some lan-
guage that might sound like it was exaggerated. We don't recognize
it at the time because were feeling intense, and all that sort of thing.
So we will let the incident pass.
Mr. DE Furia. Very well, sir.
Ssnator, do you have copy of what you said to the press rigA^
after the Zwicker hearinc; in New York?
Senator McCarthy. No, sir, I do not.
Mr. DE Furia. May I call to your attention a quotation
The Chairman. First, Mr. de Furia, I wonder if you might develop
what happened, wdiat occurred, immediately after the recess.
Mr. DE Furia. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Tie it in with the events immediately preceding the
end of the hearing.
Mr. DE Furia. Very well, sir.
Senator, at some point in the Zwicker hearing in New York the
reporter stopped taking down the proceedings ; is that correct, sir ?
52461—54 23
348 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator McCarthy, That is correct.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Now, did you immediately leave the room or did
you stay in the rooiii ?
Senator McCarthy. No. I had a conversation with General
Zwicker. I told him that, in view of the fact that he had met the
press outside the room — I kneAv he was there — in view of our practice
of giving the press a resume of what occurred in executive sessions, to
avoid a distorted version of it, we would do it in this case and in this
case we would divert from the usual practice of not telling who the
witness was because they knew he was there and he had talked to
them.
I asked him to sit in the jury box right next to where we had the
press conference with his aides and listen to what I said and listen
carefuly. I said, "If I don't give a correct resume of the facts, I want
you to call that to the attention of the press immediately."
The press thereupon came into the room and I gave them a resume.
I asked Zwicker whether he had any corrections to make.
He shook his head. After I left the building, however, he did make
some rather uncomplimentary remarks about the press conference,
but only after I had left the building.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Can you tell us, Senator, what you said to the press ?
Senator McCarthy. I just gave them a resume of the Zwicker testi-
mony.
Mr. DE Furia. If you will pardon me, sir, that does not give the
committee very much information, to say that you gave a resume.
Can you tell us actually what you said to the press about General
Zwicker and the incident ?
Senator McCarthy. I couldn't recall what I told them on that par-
ticular occasion, except the usual practice of giving a very brief
resume.
Mr. DE Furia. Senator, did you tell the press that you were order-
ing General Zwicker to come back and that he had better be ready to
answer certain questions?
Senator McCarthy. I may have told him that he was ordered to
return. I don't think I told them he would have to be ready to answer
certain questions.
Mr. DE Furia. Senator, did you tell the press that the Zwicker hear-
ing was held principally for tlie benefit of Bob Stevens ?
Senator McCarthy. I don't remember that. I told the press from
time to time that all of the evidence would be supplied to the Secretary
of the Army.
The Chairman. He is confining this, Senator, to this specific
occasion.
Senator McCarthy. It is impossible to pick up one press confer-
ence and tell you exactly what was said.
The CiiAiRMAisr. Well, that is what he is confining it to.
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
The Chairman. Of course, if you cannot remember, you can say so,
although I do not want to advise you on that, but, at any rate, what
the committee wants to know is about this particular press conference
and what you said because
Senator McCarthy. I don't think I said I was holding it for the
benefit of Bob Stevens.
Mr. DE Furia. Are you sure. Senator ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 349
I mean is it possible you might have said it? I understand you
can't remember, but is it possible you might have said it, or is your
answer categorically that you did not say it, sir?
Senator McCarthy. It is highly improbable. I don't think I said
it. That is all I can tell you.
I am reasonably certain I didn't say that.
Mr. de Furia, ]ust to be completely frank with you, I might have
said these hearings that we were holding were to aid the Secretary
of the xVrmy in cleaning house, or something like that, but whether it
was said on this occasion, or not, I don't know.
Mr. DE Furia, You mean cleaning the house for Communists, or
cleaning the house for generals, sir.
I don't quite understand.
Senator INIcCarthy. Communists and those who protected Commu-
nists, promoted them and honorably discharged them.
Mr. DE Furia. I have tried in my examination, sir, to bring out
some mitigating circumstances in the Zwicker case, but apparently I
haven't succeeded ; is that right, sir ?
]\Ir. Williams. Just a minute.
Mr. DE Furia. You are still
INIr. AViLLiAMS. Just a minute, ]Mr. de Furia.
Mr. Chairman, I don't think that it is Mr. de Furia's prerogative
to comment on the testimony. Certainly he can ask all the relevant,
competent questions at his command ; but I don't think he should be
commenting upon this testimony, and I am surprised to hear him do it,
and I ask that remark be stricken from the record.
The Chairman. The Chairman's attention was directed elsewhere,
but
Mr. AViLLiAMS. I will try to repeat what he said.
The Chairman. The reporter
Mr. DE Furia. I wall admit it should be stricken.
The Chairman. All right. That ends the incident. It is out.
A^Hien I say, "It is out," I say it is stricken. I want to be sure the
record stands.
]Mr. DE Furia. Senator, were you authorized by either the major
committee or your subcommittee on permanent investigations to reveal
what transpired at the Zwicker executive hearing ?
Senator INIcCarthy. I discussed the matter with the representatives
of the two Senators who were present and we agreed, in view' of the
Stevens' statement, it should be released.
]Mr. DE FiRiA. You say you discussed it with the representatives of
the two Senators?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
]\Ir. DE Furia. In spite of the rules of your own committee that all
testimony taken in executive session shall be kept secret and will not
be released or used in public session W'ithout the approval of the ma-
jority of the subcommittee ?
I JFelt that the two men who were present were representing the
Senators, and they constituted a majority. There were only four
Senators on the committee at that time.
Mr. DE Furia. In a matter involving a general of the United States,
then, you permitted an administrative assistant to exercise the pre-
rogatives of the United States Senate?
350 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator McCarthy. I think I have recited the facts to you.
Mr. Williams. I want to say this, if I may, Mr. Chairman. I
have just been told — and I think it is important for the record
The Chairman. Just a moment. Are you objecting?
Mr. Williams. I am just trying to straighten ont a very material
matter, wliich probably should be accurately stated on the record,
that Mr. Ranville, I am told, was an acting administrative assistant.
Now, we will verify that information. I think there is testimony
here that he was an administrative assistant. I am told that is correct.
Mr. DE FuRiA. We will check that.
The Chairman. It may be that at that time he had no official status.
I do not know whether that is true or not.
Mr. Williams. We will find out.
The Chairman. I do not know whether it was true or not, but I
merely mentioned it, since you brought it up.
Senator McCarthy. May I say further, Mr. de Furia, in answer to
your question, that General Zwicker had already released a distorted
version of the testimony, through Bob Stevens, in affidavit form. I
felt under the circumstances that the correct version should be
released.
Mr. DE Furia. Why, Senator, you released this first 2 or 3 minutes
after your hearing concluded ; did you not?
Senator McCarthy. No ; I did not. It was the transcript.
Mr. DE Furia. You called in the press, did you not, right away?
Senator McCarthy. I did not.
Mr. DE Furia. To tell them what had happened in the executive
session ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. de Furia, if you want to know what the
practice was here, and what the practice is
Mr. DE Furia. I do not want the practice.
Senator McCarthy. I did not release the transcript.
Mr. DE Furia. I am not talking about the transcript. But you did
tell the press what happened in the closed executive session, within
a few minutes after that session ended?
Senator McCarthy. I gave them a resume of the testimony; yes.
Mr. DE Furia. Sir, I am asking you. Upon what authority, or by
what right, you did that?
S'-nator McCarthy. Because that has been our practice.
Mr. DE Furia. In spite of the rule of your own committee?
Senator McCarthy. That has been the practice of the committee.
Mr. DE Furia. General Zwicker's affidavit was not made until 2
days later; isn't that right. Senator? It is dated February 20.
Senator McCarthy. I don't know what date it is dated, but the
transcript was not released until after the distorted version of the
testimony given by Zwicker.
Mr. Williams. t)o you have the rule, there, Mr. de Furia?
Mr. DE Furia. Yes; I have the rule, and I would like to have it in
evidence, if the chairman please.
The Chairman. It will be received.
The rules of procedure adopted by the Committee on Government
Operations, which is shown in an extract of the minutes of the meeting
of the Committee on Government Operations, January 14, 1053, will be
placed in tlie record at this point by having Mr. de Furia read into the
record those rules.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 351
Mr. DE FuRTA. Mr. Williams, I do not know, sir, whether you have
seen these. May I show them to you ? I want to be sure they are a
copy of the correct rules.
The Chairman. May I ask, Mr. de Furia, that I may reserve the
ruling, until I ask 2 or 3 questions?
Mr. del^'iiria, where did you get this copy?
Mr. DE Furia. I think Sanator McCarthy's office sent it up, in reply
to a request from one of our staff.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, so the chairman may have the
complete situation in respect to this, I may say we have had a meeting
of the committee to discuss whether or not this practice should be
followed — the practice of briefing the press after an executive session.
The committee has made no final decision on it. They have been in-
formed that the practice will continue, unless there is a decision made
ao;ainst it. I merelv mention it to show that this was done with the
approval of the committee.
The Chairman. Where was this conference held, that you are talk-
ing about ?
Senator McCarthy. I held it after the Democrats came back on the
committee. While we had only the Rspublicans on, they were aware
of it, and there was no disapproval of it. May 1
The Chairman. I think that is enough on the rule question at the
moment.
Mr. DE FuRLA.. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence, and ask that it
be read in or made a part of the record, the rules of procedure adopted
by the Committee on Government Operations, an extract from the
minutes of a meeting of the Committee on Government Operations
on Januarv 14, 1953.
The Chairman. The Chair has already directed that that may be
done, so there is no challenge to the correctness of the item, or at least
of the correctness of the copy. You may proceed.
Just a moment. Get that in the record at this particular point.
Mr. Williams, Mr. Chairman, I think the only pertinent rule is
the rule on testimony, that a transcript of testimony may not be re-
leased without a majority vote. I do not say that all of those are
rules of the committee.
Mr. DE Furia. I would like to read them, just to show what they are.
The Chairman. I do not see how it could possibly do any damage.
Mr. DE Furia. I agree.
Mr. Williams. All right.
Mr. DE Furia. Rules of practice adopted by the Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations; extract from the minutes of the meeting of the
Committee on Government Operations, January 14, 1953.
Quorum : For the purpose of taking sworn testimony in full committee, the
committee adopted a rule that three members thereof shall constitute a quorum
for the purpose of taking sworn testimony by a subcommittee. The committee
adopted a rule that one member of any subcommittee shall constitute a quorum.
Proxy : The committee adopted the following rule with respect to proxy, re-
stricting the form of proxy, when record evidence is taken by them on any bill,
resolution, or amendment
Senator McCarthy, Those are not the rules of the subcommittee.
Mr. Williams. Senator McCarthy says these are the rules of the
parent committee.
352 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The Chairman. They are all together. I know that you have the
rules of the parent committee or parent body, as well as the subcom-
mittee. The members of the Senate may want to know what all the
rules are. I do not see why it should not be in the record.
Senator JVIcCarthy. If you want the rules of the subcommittee, I
can have some staff member get those.
The Chairman. These were rules adopted by the full committee, as
I understand it, from the notation in the copy.
Mr. DE Furia. Shall I continue the offer, sir?
The Chairman. Just a moment.
The question was raised
Senator McCarthy. I think you might want the rules adopted by
the subcommittee.
I have no objection to their being read in, but I wanted you to know
they were not the rules of the subcommittee.
The Chairman. They are rules adopted at a meeting of the full
committee, and apparently it was adopting the rules for the subcom-
mittee, too.
At any rate, they purport to be, and it was a copy furnished by you.
Senator McCarthy. I have no objection to their being read in.
The Chairman. It will be put in the record.
Mr. DE Furia (reading) :
RESTRICTED FORM OF PROXY
When a record vote is taken in committee on any bill, resolution, amendment,
or other question, a majority of the members being present, a member who is
unable to attend the meeting may submit his vote by proxy, in writing.
Such proxy shall be addressed to the chairman and filed with the chief clerk.
It shall contain sufficient reference to the bill, resolution, or motion as is necessary
to clearly identify the proposal, and to iufox-m the committee as to how the mem-
ber wishes his vote to be recorded thereon. Such proxy shall then be counted
officially in the final tabulation of that vote.
The chief clerk shall be reqxiired to insert such proxies in the minutes of such
meeting as a permanent record.
RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE SENATE PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION
1. No major investigation shall be initiated without approval of a majority
of the subcommittee or approval of the majority of the full committee on govern-
ment operations. However, preliminary inquiries may be initiated by tlie sub-
committee staff with the approval of the chairman of the subcommittee.
2. Subpenas for attendance of witnesses and the production of records shall
be issued by the subcommittee chairman, or other members designated by him.
3. Executive hearings shall be held only with the approval of the chairman
of the subcommittee. This authority may be delegated by the chairman to
other members of the committee when necessary.
4. Public hearings shall be held only with the approval of the majority of the
subcommittee or with the approval of a majority of the full committee.
5. An exact and accurate stenographic record shall be kept of the testimony
of all witnesses in executive and public hearings.
6. All testimony taken in executive session shall be kept secret and will not
be released or used in public session without the approval of a majority of the
subcommittee.
7. Any witness summoned to a public or executive hearing may be accom-
panied by counsel of his own choosing who shall be permitted while the wntness
is testifying to advise him of his legal rights.
S. Any person who is the subject of an investigation in public hearings may
sul)mit questions for the cross-examination of other witnesses called by the
subcommittee by submitting such questions in writing to the chairman. With
the consent of the majority of the subcommittee then present these questions
will be put to the witness by a member or counsel of the subcommittee.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 353
9. Any witness desiring to make a prepared or written statement in executive
or public liearings is required to tile a copy of such statement witli the counsel
or chairman of the subcommittee 24 hours in advance of the hearing at which
the statement is to be presented.
10. No report shall be made to the Senate or released to the public without
the approval of the majority of the subcommittee or by a majority of the full
committee.
The Chairman. At this point, the committee will be in recess for
15 minutes.
Senator McCarthy. Could I first tell Mr. de Furia
Mr. DK Furia, I am sorry, sir.
The Chairman. This will not be in the record unless I withdraw
the order. Is it important ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, it is a qualification of the answer.
I have just been informed by my staff that my chief of staff, Mr.
Carr, did get permission from a majority of the members of the-
committee to release this testimony. We are checking with him now.
I will inform you at the end of the recess whether that is correcti
or not.
The Chairman. We will have to call Mr. Carr as a witness, prob-
ably.
Senator McCarthy. I can check with him very easily.
(Whereupon, at 3:05 p. m., a recess was taken until 4:30 o'clock
p. m.)
The Chairman. The committee will resume session.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to qualify some
information I gave you previously on two points.
The Chairman, just a minute.
Had you finished, Mr. de Furia ?
Mr. DE Furia. No, sir; I had 3 or 4 more questions.
The Chairman. I am going to permit you to do it, but I was going
to find out if he was through and if he is, you in turn can take over.
There are other categories you have not been examined on.
Senator McCarthy. Right.
The CiiAiRiNiAN. I think you had better go ahead, then, now.
Senator McCarthy. I would like to qualify an answer I gave
Mr. de Furia.
Actually, the Democrats were back on the committee at the time
of the Zwicker matter. So we had a seven-man committee. My chief
of the staff, Mr. Carr, tells me
The Chairman. Just a moment. .
I think maybe we had better call Mr. Carr. If you have something
you could call him.
Senator McCarthy. I wanted to tell you what he will
The Chairman. I know, but that is not proper under the rules we
have set down.
Senator McCarthy. Could I do it off the record?
The Chairman. I do not think you ought to do it on or off the
record. We are attempting to keep within the rules we have laid
down here.
Senator McCarthy. I wanted to tell you what he was trying to do.
The Chairman. In other words, we are going to let Mr. Carr tell
the story that you have made reference to, the matter you mentioned
before.
354 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator McCarthy. No. 2, I would like to qualify another matter.
I made the statement, I think, that I felt Zwicker was relying solely
upon an Army order. I find, however, that on page 155, first referring
to page 149, he was asked :
Did you take any steps to have him retained until the Secretary of the Army
could decide whether he should be court-martialed?
The answer:
No, sir.
But then on page 155, when asked that question again, he relied
upon the Executive order. So that Zwicker did rely upon the Execu-
tive order at times.
The Chairman. I will say, Senator, if you have some testimony
from Mr. Carr, we would like to call him to testify about the matter
you had reference to.
If you indicate he is to be a witness, let us know, and we will call him.
Senator McCarthy. I merely wanted to qualify — I made an an-
swer, Mr. Chairman. I don't argue this other point. I made the
answer saying that I relied upon the administrative assistants, and I
was going to tell you that Mr. Carr was checking with the telegraph
company to find if we did not send wires to all seven Senators to get
permission.
He wouldn't know that for some time.
The Chairman. All right, we can take it up when he gets the
information.
You may proceed, Mr. de Furia.
Mr. DE Furia. Now, Senator, didn't General Zwicker at the hearing
before you, sir, try to read into the record the Presidential and the
Executive orders which prohibited him from replying to some of
3'our questions ?
Senator McCarthy. Will you refer to the transcript so I can check
that?
Mr. DE Furia. The last 2 or 3 lines, sir, on page 157.
Senator McCarthy. He says, if you care to have me, I will cite
certain other portions of this. I said, "You need cite nothing. You
may step down."
Mr. DE Furia. Didn't he have the orders in his hands or copies of
the orders in his hands at that time. Senator, and you said, "You need
cite nothing; you may step down?"
Senator McCarthy. I said exactly what I read to you, Mr. de
Furia.
Mr. DE Furia. I am asking you, sir, didn't he at that time have in
his hand showing to you copies of the orders which restricted his
testimony, sir?
Senator McCarthy. I don't know, but I assume if he was going
to read something, that eitlier he or his aide had them.
Mr. DE Furia. Did you have in your files at that time copies of the
same order that he tried to read ?
Senator McCarthy. I think we had copies of all of the Executive
orders.
Mr. DE Furia. And the Presidential orders.
Senator McCarthy. I think we had.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 355
Mr. DE FuRiA. Now, Senator, did you receive a letter from Secre-
tary of the Army Stevens dated February 16, 1954, in reply to a letter
from you to Secretary Stevens dated February 1, 1954?
Senator McCarthy. I am afraid you vpould have to show me a
copy of that.
(Mr. de Furia handed a document to Mr. Williams.)
Senator McCarthy. Is this an extra copy of that ?
Mr. DE Furia. Yes, I got that from Mr. Williams, sir, and you may
retain it.
Senator McCarthy. This seems to be a copy of the letter that I
received from Bob Stevens.
Mr. DE Furia. When did you receive it, Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. I wouldn't know. The date here is February
16, so I assume it would have been the I7th or 18th.
Mr. DE Furia. You did have it, did you not, Senator, before the
hearing before General Zwicker testified in New York ?
Senator McCarthy. I don't think so. No, I am reasonably certain
we did not have this letter.
Mr. DE Furia. Do you remember that John Adams gave you an-
other copy of the letter on the morning of February 18, 1954, Senator '?
Senator McCarthy. No, I don't remember that.
Mr. DE Furia. Are you sure you did not have a copy, sir, at the
hearing before General Zwicker was called as a witness?
Senator McCarthy. I don't think I had a copy. If I were handed
a copy, I wouldn't have had time to read it anyway, because I was busy
that morning. That is the morning that I had been over to the hos-
pital, took my wife over there, rushed back to the hearing. I was
late, and I wouldn't have had time to read a four-page letter.
Mr. WiELiAMS. I think you were confused when you said I gave
you this ; I didn't give you this.
Mr. DE Furia. I got the copy for you.
Mr. Williams. I am very sorry ; I thought you said you got it from
me.
Mr. DE FuRLv. No.
Senator, I would like to have an answer to this question : Did you
have this letter from Secretary Stevens before you examined General
Zwicker ?
Senator McCarthy. I don't think so.
Mr. DE Furia. Are you positive, sir ?
Mr. Williams. I think he has answered the question.
The Chairman. I think he has answered the question.
Mr. DE Furia. Very well, sir.
Did you make a speech in Philadelphia, Senator McCarthy, right
after the Zwicker hearing ?
It was at a luncheon at the Sons of the American Revolution
chapter.
Senator JVIcCarthy. I made a speech in Philadelphia ; I don't recall
the date.
Mr. DE Fukia. Did you read part of the transcript of the testimony
of the executive hearing of General Zwicker at that luncheon meeting ?
Mr. Williams. What was the date of that ?
Mr. DE Furia. I think it was either the 21st or the 20th, Mr. Wil-
liams ; I am not sure.
356 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator McCarthy. I may well have. I consistently used docu-
ments in speeches.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Well, I think this — I won't sa}'. You say you may
have read part of the testimony of General Zwicker taken at an execu-
tive session at a luncheon ; is that correct, sir ?
Senator ]McCarthy. I don't know. I don't remember what I said
at that si)eech.
Mr. Williams. Do you have anything there to refi'esh his recollec-
tion on til at, Mr. de Furia ?
Mr. DE Furia. Only a newspaper article, sir; that is all; but we
will check into it.
Mr. Williams. May we see that ?
Mr. DE Furia. Yes, I will be glad to show you the article.
(Mr. de Furia shows Mr. Williams a paper.)
Senator McCartba'. Can I answer you, Mr. de Furia?
Was this after the transcript was made public ?
Mr. DE Furia. Apparently so. The article says you read portions
of the transcript at the luncheon.
Senator McCarthy, I am curious. I am not tiying to cross-
examine you, but the transcript was made ])ublic after Zwicker's affi-
davit and I wondered if you would know whether this was after that
or not.
Mr. DE Furia. Apparently it was. Senator ; I can only fix the date
from the news story which is the 22d and apparently your speech was
either the 21st or that same day, sir.
Senator McCarthy. I may well have read portions.
Mr. de Furia?
Mr. DE Furia. Yes, Senator.
Senator McCarthy. I made an off-the-cuff S])eech at that time, and
I very honestly cannot tell you what I said, or what transcripts or what
documents I read from. I just wouldn't know and I wouldn't attempt
to swear to it under oath.
The Chairman. Did you discuss the appearance of General Zwicker
before the committee at this executive session in New York, the one in
question ?
Senator McCarthy. Senator Watkins, I make a great number of
speeches and I make them off the cuff. This was off the cuff. I do not
know wliat I discussed.
The Chairman. I wanted to be sure about that. If you do re-
member, and I realize that you do make a lot of speeches and it is
difficult to remember those things, all I can ask you to do is to do the
best you can to give us the information.
Senator McCarthy. I might well have discussed the Zwicker case
at that time.
The Chairman. What was the date of that article in the news-
papers ?
^Ir. Williams. Dateline February 22.
Mr. DE Furia. February 22, 1954 ; yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. It sounds like a Washington Birthday speech.
Mr. DE Furia. Senator, can you affirm or deny that at that speech,
in discussing the General Zwicker case, you said :
As I look over it today, I was too temperate. If I were doing it today I would
be much stronger in my language.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 357
Senator McCarthy. As I say, I just cannot recall -what was said
in this oiT-the-cuff speech. There was no prepared transcript. I
made notes during: the luncheon, as I recall, and I gave a speech.
That is all I can tell you.
Mr. DE FuRiA. May we have a minute, sir ?
The Chairman. Yes.
At this point the committee would like, as a matter of courtesy to
Senator Hayden, wliom we would like to call as a witness, to interrupt
this particular examination and ask Senator Hayden to come in. He
wants to leave for Arizona and it is a matter of record that we want
to go into.
Is there any objection on the part of Senator McCarthy?
Senator McCarthy. How long will his testimony take?
The Chairman. Why, it should not take very long. It is on some
record matters in connection with the committee. He has his reserva-
tion to leave.
Mr. Williams. Maybe we can stipulate to them.
The Chairman. Well, they are not all record matters. Some of
it is, and some of it is not.
Senator McCarthy. I think as a courtesy to Senator Hayden that
we will have no objection to the interruption, Mr, Chairman.
Mr. Williams. I was wondering whether or not it would be neces-
sary for us to remove all these documents.
The Chairman. If you can allow liim to have a place at the table
there — can you swing this microphone in front of the table and he
can testify from there? We will have to call Senator Hayden. It
may take a moment or two for him to come.
If there are some matters you want to go into, Mr. de Furia, we can
go into them until Senator Hayden gets here.
Mr. DE Furia. No, I have none, Mr. Chairman.
May I revise that answer, Mr. Chairman ?
There is a letter from Senator Guy M. Gillette to Senator Carl
Hayden, dated September 10, 1952, which is exhibit No. 37 in the Hen-
nings-Hayden-Hendrickson report that I think we all agi^eed, Mr.
Williams, should go into the record, and I would like to read it in at
this time.
Mr. Williams. I am sorry. What page is that?
Mr. DE Furia. That is page 95, exhibit 37.
I believe you referred to the exhibit.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. That has been placed in the record, and it will
appear in the hearing report at the point where the matter was re-
ferred to by Mr. Williams.
Mr. DE Furia. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Proceed.
There is one item that Senator Case asked that the committee have
placed in the record that I think Mr. Chadwick can take care of at
this moment.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, we examined the sequence of dates,
the chronology between the different dates upon which matters critical
of Senator Flanders were mentioned and the dates of three speeches.
The purpose of this was to determine the relative importance of the
three speeches in connection with the remarks which were made after-
ward by Senator McCarthy.
358 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
We find that the first
The Chairman. You have checked that from the records, have you,
the records of which we can take judicial notice?
Mr. Chadwick, Yes, sir.
We have the dates of the remarks from our testimony and we have
the dates of the speeches from Mr. Williams, supplied by Mr. Wil-
liams, when he offered them in evidence.
Mr. Williams. I don't understand what you are reading into the
record.
Mr, Chadwick. Well, Mr. Williams, the situation is this : Some of
the members of the conmiittee were uncertain whether all of the three
speeches which you offered in evidence, speeches made by Senator
Flanders, could have had relativity
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Mr. Chadwick. To subsequent remarks, and I can shorten this
by saying our investigation indicates that the third speech, the
speech — was it July 20? — the third of the three speeches you men-
tioned— came after all the events of criticism of Senator Flanders by
Senator McCarthy.
Mr. Williams. Are you saying only the first two antedated the col-
loquy in question ?
Mr. Chadwick. Well, you see, the criticism was expressed on June 1
and June 2.
Mr. Williams. I will so stipulate that, if that is what your investi-
gation shows.
Mr. Chadwick. The second and third were as of June 11, according
to my investigation.
Mr. Williams. If you say that, I will stipulate to it.
Mr. Chadwick. Yes. Well, the whole purpose is to define for the
benefit of the chairman whether or not the last of the three
speeches
Mr. Williams. I understand that, Mr. Chadwick, and I have so
stipulated.
Mr. Chadwick. Well
Mr. Williams. I have stipulated that your statement on the dates
is absolutely correct.
Mr. Chadwick. I am only trying to say, sir, the matter now becomes
one for the chairman.
The Chairman. Just a moment.
You say the last speech referred to there came subsequent to the
criticisms of Senator Flanders by Senator McCarthy?
Mr. Chadwick. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. But not on the same day as the last criticism ?
Mr. Chadwick. No, sir.
Mr. Williams. I have so stipulated. Since Mr. Chadwick has
corrected the record in that respect, and since he says he has checked
the dates, I don't have any question about it. So I don't see
The Chairman. All right. We will clear that in the record by
stipulation.
I have a question in my own mind. It seemed to me the last one
was on the same day.
Mr. Williams. I had thought so yesterday when I offered them.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 359
TESTIMONY OF SENATOR GAEL HAYDEN
Tlie Chairman. Senator Hayden is now present and ready to be
examined.
So, Senator, will you stand and be sworn ?
Do you solemnly swear the testimony given in the matter now pend-
ing before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth, so help you God ?
Senator Hayden, I do.
The Chairman. For the record, you may state your name.
Senator Hayden, Carl Hayden,
The Chairman, You are a Member of the United States Senate?
Senator Hayden, United States Senator from the State of Arizona.
The Chairman. How long have you been a Member of the Senate ^
Senator Hayden. Since 1927.
The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. Chadwick.
Mr. Chadwick. Senator, I wish to call to your attention the circum-
stances which surrounded the resignation of Senator Welker from the
subcommittee which is a subject matter before this committee. You
are familiar with the subject matter which I discussed with you today.
Senator Hayden. Yes.
Mr. Chadwick. Senator, will you state, in your own way and in
your own words, the problem which was presented to you as chairman
of the parent committee, the main committee, what events occurred
in the way of resignations or otherwise to present a problem, and how
you, in your capacity as chairman, disposed of that problem ?
Senator Hayden. I received advice of the resignation of Senator
Gillette
The Chairman. If you will get a little closer to the microphone,
Senator Hayden
Senator Hayden. I was advised of the resignation of Senator Gil-
lette and Senator Welker by mail, which I received in Phoenix, Ariz.,
and at that place accepted both resignations.
I realized, by reason of a suggestion made in Senator Gillette's letter,
that the subcommittee might continue as 3 ratlier than to make it 5,
that there was a question there. So, I directed the clerk of the com-
mittee, Mrs. Grace E. Johnson, to inquire of the Parliamentarian of
the Senate as to what the situation would be, and I received from her
this memorandum, which I am prepared to read. It is addressed to
rue and says — ■. —
The Chairman. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. I would like to see it, if I may, before it goes in.
The Chairman. Will you please submit it to Mr. Williams ?
Mr. Williams. Thank you. Senator.
Mr. Chairman, this is a memorandum by Grace E. Johnson, as Sena-
tor Hayden has just indicated, recounting a conversation which she
says she had with the Parliamentarian, in which she undertakes to set
out the law on this subject as she understands it from her conversation
with the Parliamentarian.
I just don't see how this could go in if we are still adhering to the
hearsay rule.
The Chairman. I think your exception or your questioning of the
document is well taken.
360 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
I tliink we can call Cliarley Watkins, the Senate Parliamentarian,
if lie is physically able to come now. He has been ill for some time.
If we can't get him, we can probably get his assistant, who has been
the Acting Parliamentarian for some time.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, in order to make it possible for the
Senator to proceed with his statement, I would like to be permitted
to ask him, refreshing his recollection, what was his understanding of
the situation with respect to the applicable rules which would guide
him in the next matters to which he will testify.
The Chairman^. That may be permitted. He may have that for
the purpose of refreshing his recollection, but for the purpose of the
record, I want to ask you a question, Senator.
Senator Ha YDEN. Certainly,
The Chairman. The time we are talking about now you were the
chairman of the full Committee of Eules and whatever else goes to
that time of the Senate ?
Senator Hayden. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. How long had you been at that time chairman of
that committee ?
Senator Hayden. Since the beginning of the 81st Congress.
The Chairman. That is in 1949 ?
Senator Hayden. Yes.
The Chairman. In January 1949 ?
Senator Hayden. Yes.
The Chairman. And when was this item
Senator Hayden. This was 1952.
The Chairman. 1952?
Senator Hayden. This was in November.
Mr. Williams. Senator, I merely wanted to make my position clear.
I think the Senator is clearly competent, of course, to testify to what
action he took, but I do not think he should testify here with i-espect
to what the Parliamentarian is qualified to do.
The Chairman. I do not expect him to testify to that, and I have
already indicated that I will require — that is, the committee will re-
quire; of course, when I speak, I am speaking for the committee-
testimony on that point, because some members of the committee are
intterested in it, some questions have been raised.We want to get all
the evidence that we can that is material with retference to the points
and issues raised.
All right, you may proceed as indicated by Mr. Chadwick.
Senator Hayden. Well, I made inquiry to find out what was the
proper thing for me to do, and asked the clerk of the committee to as-
certain from the Parliamentarian what he thought I should do un-
der those circumstances.
The Chairman. Now, Senator, in view of the questions that have
been raised, you will not be permitted to tell what the Parliamenta-
rian said. In the way that you received it, then, we will have to have
the Parliamentarian himself here to give us information on that
point, and, if he recalls this conversation, he probably could tell us
what your clerk did.
Wliat is her name ?
Senator Hayden. Mrs. Johnson.
The Chairman. Mrs. Johnson is the clerk of the committee?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 361
Senator Hayden. Yes.
The Chairman. The chief clerk?
Senator Hayden. She was the chief clerk regularly employed on the
connnittee ; and I asked her, as part of her duty, to get this informa-
tion for me ; which she did.
The Chairman. You may tell what she did, but you will not be
permitted to tell or read what is in that memorandum.
Senator Hayden. Well, from the information I received, I be-
came convinced that 3 members of the committee of 5 could function as
a committee ; and therefore, that it was unnecessary for me to appoint
2 other members, to make a full committee of 5, because 3 was a
majority of 5; and therefore, I did not proceed to appoint. I had
great difficulty, bein^ out in Arizona, in coming back here when Con-
gress was not in session, to obtain Senators who were members of the
Senate Committee on Rules and Administration to serve on a com-
mittee; so I just left it as a committee of three.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Let him finish that sentence. Have you finished
that sentence ?
Senator Hayden. I left it a committee of three.
The Chairman. All right now. Senator Case.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, when he refers to the committee, to
what committee does the Seantor refer ?
Senator Hayden. The Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections.
Senator Case. Which was a subcommittee of the Committee on
Rules and Administration ?
Senator Hayden. Of which I was the chairman.
Senator Case. That is all.
Senator Hayden. Well, I came back to Washington, and on arrival
here, or very shortly afterward, I found that Senator Monroney, a
member of this subcommittee, had left to go to Europe, and that left
but 2 members on the committee who could serve; anci I did not think
that 2 were enough out of 5 to do the work of the committee ; so I en-
deavored to ascertain what had happened to him, and when he was
going to come back, and so I learned that he had sailed for Italy, and
I took the opportunity, then, through the trans-Atlantic service of
the State Department, to try to ask him, and this is the message that I
gave to the State Department, which I now read. It is addressed to
Mike Monroney :
Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections cannot function without three mem-
bers. Hope you can fly back to Washington, but if not, radio me your resignation
from subcommittee so I can appoint a member in your place.
That was signed :
Senator Carl Hayden, chairman, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
That message was delivered to Senator Monroney in Italy at some
point in southern Italy, I understood. Then I received from the State
Department, under date of November 20, the following letter :
Dear Senator Hayoen : Here follows the text of the message from Senator
Monroney, forwarded to the Department through the United States Embassy in
Rome :
"For Senator Carl Hayden, from Senator A. S. Mike Monroney.
"As per your request, this is my resignation from the Elections and Privileges
Subcommittee. This is, of course, in reply to your message, which the Depart-
ment dispatched on November 19."
362 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The above quoted message was telephoned to your office immediately upon
receipt.
Sincerely yours,
Dan H. Brown, Jr.,
Acting Assistant Secretary.
And it was addressed to me. Under those circumstances, then, I
took this action.
On November 20, 1 addressed a letter, as follows :
"Mr. Darreli. St. Claire,
Clerk, Senate Commiltee on Rules and Administration,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. St. Claire : Please make it of record that I have received the resig-
nation of Senator A. S. (Alike) Monroney as a member of tlie Subcommittee on
Privileges and Elections, which is hereby accepted, and that I hereby appoint
myself as a member of that Subcommittee.
Very sincerely yours,
Carl Hayden,
Chairman, Committee on Rules and Aduunistration.
Copy of resignation attached.
Mr, CnADWiCK. Senator, did that subcommittee, so constituted, con-
tinue to function for the rest of the year, and until its successor com-
mittee took over '^
Senator Hayden. In January of 1953.
Mr. Chadwick. You participated with the other members of the
committee ?
Senator Hayden. I did.
Mr. Chadwick. Under Senator Hennings?
Senator Hayden. Senator Hennings was chairman.
Mr. Chadwick. Incidentally, from your knowledge can you say
whether or not that committee has been continued thereafter until the
present time as a committee of three ?
Senator Hayden. It has.
Mr. Chadwick. Was Senator Gillette's recommendation, in his
letter, given consideration by the committee, both the subconunittee
and the parent committee ?
Senator Hayden. That is the effect of it ; yes.
Mr. Chadwick. Senator Hayden, there was attached to the record
of the Hennings-Hayden-Hendrickson report, as tiled, I think, on
January 2, a loose paper. Will you explain to this committee what
significance attached to that paper, which we find attached to the
formal copies of the report, at all points ?
The Chaikman. Just before you answer that question, may we have
the paper referred to, Mr. Chadwick? Let the paper be identified.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chaiiman, the convenient copy of the report
of the addenda to subcommittee report on Senate Resolution 187 and
Senate Kesolution 304 appears in volume 1034 of the Senate hearings
of 1953, from the Senate Library. I will be very glad to show this
to Mr. Williams. I hope, in the interest of time, he may agree with
this published addenda, wliich was found and is found in the com-
mittee report, so Senator Hayden may explain what it means.
Mr. Williams. It is there, I agree.
The Chairman. If it was contained in the report, it was a loose-leaf
stuck in the report, as I understand it.
Mr. Williams. That is right.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 363
The Chairman. At least, that is the way it came to me. I remem-
ber when I received a copy of it.
Mr. Chadwick. Senator, I show you a printed copy of the ad-
dendum, and inquire whether that is the one to which you are
referring ?
Senator Hayden. We had finished •
The Chairman. You are identifying this ; and that is the addendum
to the report?
Senator Hayden. This is the addendum.
The Chairman. Can you explain how that got there, and the
significance of it?
Senator Hayden. Yes.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Senator Hayden. We had finished our work with three members
of the subcommittee.
The Chairman. Now, name those members.
Senator Hayden. Senator Hennings, chairman, Senator Hendrick-
son, and myself.
The Chairman. You were the acting members of this Subcommit-
tee on Privileges and Elections of the Committee on Rules and Ad-
ministration?
Senator Hayden. That is correct; and we had finished our main
report. We had great difficulty in doing that, I would say, Mr.
Chairman, because some of us could be in town all the time, and some
of us could not ; and Senator Hendrickson had to go up to New Jersey
to keep an appointment at that time. But we finally finished it, and
then he sent down this addendum and said that he wanted to have it
included in the report ; and Senator Hennings and I agreed it should
be done.
We made inquiry at the Government Printing Office, and were in-
formed it was impossible to have it printed as a part of the report,
because the report was in the bindery, and you could not take it apart
and insert the page; and so we directed them that this addendum,
this loose leaf, be printed by the Government Printing Office, to be
included in every copy and sent up for delivery ; and that is the way
it was done.
The Chairman. Now, will you read that?
Senator Hayden. It reads :
The foregoing report is based substantially upon testimony and exhibits vrhiek
were presented before the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections. However,
because of the lack of continuity in the committee membership and delays
beyond the control of the present membership of the committee, its prepara-
tion has given us great concern as a number of its aspects have become moot
by reason of the 1952 election. Such facts therein as were known to the
people of these States particularly affected, have been passed upon by the
people themselves in the election. Thus, as we pass our studies on to our col-
leagues of the incoming session, we want the Senate of the United Slates to
understand that the committee's efforts have been harassed by a lack of ade-
quate time and lack of continuity in the committee membership.
There will be forthcoming in the next few days a committee report embody-
ing suggestions on remedial legislation affecting election laws and procedures.
Mr. Chadwick. Senator, you signed that report ?
Senator Hayden. Yes ; I signed that report.
Mr. Chadwick. Senator Hendrickson signed it ?
Senator Hayden. He did.
.52461—54 24
364 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Chadwick. And the chairman, Senator Hennings, signed it?
Senator Hayden. He did.
The Chairman. Was the report signed — I am asking this question —
before this addendum was sent down?
Senator Hatden. Yes; and the addendum came afterward, after
we had all signed the report. Senator Hennings and I stood by
Senator Hendrickson on the addendum. That is the way it was done.
The Chairman. This language is the language Senator Hendrick-
son sent to the committee, asking that it be attached as part of this
report ?
Senator Hatden. Exactly as he wrote it, and exactly as we received
it.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, I think the record should show
whether Senator Hayden and Senator Hennings endorsed the adden-
dum, referred to in an earlier statement of the report of the com-
mittee. The point was made on some of the language of the
addendum. That is, all the language has not been clearly identified.
It does appear that Senator Hendrickson wrote it. I should like to
have the record show whether or not Senator Hennings and Senator
Hayden also endorsed it as a part of the report.
Senator Hayden. We had to, if we ordered it included in the
report; and that is what we did. We said, "If the Senator wants
this in, we would agree to put it in, so that it would become a part of
the record."
The Chairman. I am glad to have that. It has always puzzled me,
how that sheet got stuck in a report.
Senator Hatden. Well, it was due entirely to the fact that the
report was in the bindery, and it could not be included in the regular
way.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, I have further questions, but I do not
want to interrupt. Before the Senator leaves, I want to ask some
further questions.
Mr. Chadwick. I have no further questions of the Senator, and I
was going to ask if the chairman would make inquii'y of other mem-
bers of the committee, as to whether they have any questions.
The Chairman. The Chair will turn the cross-examination over,
first, to Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, since his relates to a matter of
Senate committee procedure and practice, I am going to ask Senator
McCarthy if he wants to ask any questions on it.
Senator McCartht. I have a very few.
Senator, I wonder if you would just hand me those letters. I refer
to the one Monroney is on.
(The documents were handed to Senator McCarthy.)
Senator McCartht. Senator, I just have 1 or 2 questions to ask
of you. The Chair may rule that you are not qualified to answer
these and it should be the parliamentarian ; I don't know. So I would
like to have the Chair's close attention to this.
The Chairman. Do you think he is qualified to answer them?
Senator McCartht. Well, I would like to get his reasoning on it,
if I could.
The Chairman. All right; proceed.
Senator McCartht. I have always been under the impression that
the chairman could neither increase nor decrease the size of the com-
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 365
inittee. Is it your opinion that the Chair can decrease the size of
the committee?
Senator Hayden. No, the committee, as I understood it, at all times,
was a committee of 5, but that 3 members being a majority of the 5,
could continue to function as a committee of 5.
Senator McCarthy, Then we get to the next question.
Again, I was of the opinion that the Chair only had the power to
nominate members of a subcommittee and that they had to be con-
firmed by the full committee, otherwise they were not members of
the subcommittee. Would you agree with me on that ?
Senator Hayden. No, I would not, in the event that Congress was
not in session. Ordinarily, in making appointments to subcommit-
tees, as a member of the Committee on Rules and Administration, I
would divide them partywise, select three Democrats and then inquire
of the ranking Republican who he wanted, and then make the a]3-
pointments and notify the committee that I had appointed the sub-
committee of so-and-so.
Senator McCarthy. In that case, you did not get any approval of
the full committee ?
Senator Hayden. It was impossible because Congress was in recess.
The full committee was in recess.
Senator McCarthf. You didn't get it by wire or letter?
Senator Hayden. I made no effort to do that. I was of the opinion
under those circumstances, and they were very serious circumstances,
I may say, Senator, because we had three election contests coming up
right at that time : Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Mexico. It was
very important to have a subcommittee which could function properly.
Senator McCarthy. I would like to direct your attention to this,
Senator, so you will know why I attach so much importance to this.
Tlie only time that the record shows that I was requested to appear
before the subcommittee was after the 20th of November. Mr. Mon-
roney resigned on the 20th. That left only 2 of the original 5 mem-
bers who had been confirmed by the full committee.
If it took the full committee's approval to appoint you as a member
of that subcommittee, so you would have a quorum present, then you
had no committee after the 20th of November. Therefore, any
request — —
The Chairman. Let Senator McCarthy finish his question.
Senator McCarthy. Therefore, there would be no valid committee
for that reason.
It becomes very important to determine whether or not the chair-
man nomiiiates or the chairman has the right to appoint a member of
the subcommittee, and I am just curious to know upon what theory of
the law, what Senate rule, gives you the opinion that you had the
right to appoint and confirm a Member of the Senate.
Senator Hayden. Well, just the plain rule of common sense. Here
were three election contests. That is, the sworn statements submitted
to the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections demanding investi-
gation in the State of Wisconsin, in the State of Michigan and in the
State of New Mexico. There had to be a subcommittee here to per-
form the necessary functions and it had to have the majority of a
committee of five. The only way I could arrive at the situation, inas-
much as I couldn't persuade Senator Green to go on the committee, and
I couldn't appoint the Senator from Kentucky because he was chair-
366 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
man, Democratic Campaign Committee, and had participated in it —
that left nobody to be appointed but myself and therefore I appointed
myself and was immediately, proceeded immediately, to take care of
the three election contests.
Senator McCarthy. I would like to ask the Chair to do this, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a formal request of the Chair.
I think it is very important in view of the fact that there was only
request of me to appear and that was when I was up in the north
woods ; that is after Monroney had resigned after 3 of the original 5
members had resigned.
I wonder if the Chair would inquire of the Parliamentarian whether
or not there was actually a committee after the 20th of November;
whether the chairman of the full committee had the right to appoint
himself as a member, or whether that would take committee action,.
I have been under the impression the Chair only has the right to
nominate and that regardless of necessity it takes full committee action
to appoint a member, and I wonder if the Chair would undertake to
get that information from the Parliamentarian, if he would.
The Chairman. The committee, of course, wants that information.
Now, these questions have been raised and the full Senate will
want it. So we will either get Mr. Watkins, if he is well enough to
come, or his assistant, or we can direct a letter to Mr. Watkins if
that would be satisfactory, and have him give his opinion, whichever
way would be the most satisfactory.
But this committee certainly wants all of the information on it
because it is a very interesting and a very important point.
Would the committee members like to ask questions'^ We will
start over here on the left.
Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. No.
The Chairman. Senator Stennis, Senator Carlson.
Senator Carlson. No questions.
Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman, I think while Senator Hayden
is here, he might testify on his actions here in the premises that he
has testified about, that they have been customary all the time that
he was chairman of the Rules Conmiittee. Is that correct?
Senator Hayden. That is the way I always handled it.
Senator Stennis. You have been chairman since when, Senator
Hayden ?
Senator Hayden. Since the beginning of the 81st Congress ; up until
this Congress.
Senator Stennis. There has never been any rule of that committee
that was contrary to what you did in the premises of this case ?
Senator Hayden. No, I made innumerable appointments of sub-
committees and advised the committee of the action taken so that
it would be recorded in the minutes of the committee, always consult-
ing a ranking minority member as to who, if it was a subcommittee,
who it would be.
Senator Stennis. You had been a member of this committee prior-
to the time you became chairman, of course ?
Senator Hayden. Yes, sir.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 367
Senator Stennis. So far as you recall, the practice before you be-
came chairman had been the same as after you became chairman ?
Senator Hayden. And I believe it is the same today as far as I
know. I know of no change.
Senator Stennis. But I say, before you became chairman, the prac-
tice was the same as it continued during your chairmanship?
Senator Hayden. Yes.
Senator Stennis. That's all.
The Chairman. Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. No questions.
The Chairman. Senator Case, do you have any further questions?
Senator Case. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hayden, you testified that you were chairman of the Com-
mittee on Rules and Administration starting with the 81st Congress.
How long did you continue as chairman?
Senator Hayden. Until, I think, about the 16th of January 1953.
Senator Case. Sixteenth of January, 1953 ?
Senator Hayden. Yes.
Senator Case. What Congress was in session at that time?
Senator Hayden. The present Congress.
Senator Case. The 83d Congress?
Senator Hayden. Yes.
Senator Case. Did the Committee on Rules and Administration
function after, with you as chairman, function after January 3, 1953,
the date when the new Members of the Senate were sworn in ?
Senator Hayden. I know that we filed this committee report and I
don't remember what other functions were performed, but there is
no question that I was acting chairman and would act until my suc-
cessor was duly elected and qualified, which I think, was on the 16th
of January when we had the first organization of the committee and
Senator Jenner became chairman.
Senator Case. You have made reference to certain election contests
growing out of the 1952 election. Were those election contests re-
ferred to your committee following January 3, 1953 ?
Senator Hayden. No. The contest in Wisconsin we looked into
and decided that there was not anything to it and that was the end of
that.
In the case of the State of Michigan contest, we examined a certain
number of ballots sent in, and the New Mexico contest was carried on
for nearly 2 years afterwards.
Senator Case. What I am seeking to determine is whether or not
the Committee on Rules and Administration continued after the new
Congress came in and you referred to those election contests ? I think
the committee can take legislative notice, judicial notice, of the fact
that as of January 3, 1953, or on that date when the new Members were
sworn in, that there was some discussion between Senator Taft and
the Vice President with reference to certain contests.
Further, I should like to determine, if possible, whether or not the
Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, with Senator Hennings
as chairman, received or acted upon, or had referred to it these elec-
tion conte'^ts, or in any other way functioned as a subcommittee, and
whether or not your committee, the full Committee on Rules and Ad-
ministration, functioned after January 3, 1953, and January 16, 1953,
which you have given as the date when Senator Jenner took over.
368 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator Hayden. I doubt very much if any formal action of any
kind would be taken under those circumstances. It is possible that
there may be some record somewhere, but we knew that in due time
Senator Case. Was the committee in existence after Janu-
ary 3, 1953?
Senator Hayden. Certainly. I, at least, always assmned that I
was elected chairman of the committee until my successor was duly
qualified and appointed, and that did not happen until the Republi-
can committee made its report to the Senate, designating who were
to be the members of the Senate Committee on Eules and xldministra-
tion, and when they were elected to the Senate, after they were elected
to the Senate, then they met and took over.
Senator Case. How did Senator Hennings become chairman of the
Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections?
Senator Hayden. By my appointment; my designating him to that
effect. He was the only lawyer among the Democrats,
Senator Case. You designated him when? Was it after Senator
Gillette resigned ?
Senator Hayden. Yes, sir.
Senator Case. Was he the ranking majority member of the com-
mittee in point of assignment to the Subcommittee on Privileges and
Elections, following the Gillette and Monroney resignations?
Senator Haydex. My impression is that he and Senator Monroney
came in as Senators at the same time.
Senator Case. Following Senator Monroney's resignation, was
Senator Hennings then the only Democrat member, then the majority
member remaining on the subcommittee?
Senator Hayden. That is right.
Senator Case. So he succeeded to the chairmanship in that capacity ?
Senator Hayden. Yes.
Senator Case. And then you appointed yourself as a member of
the subcommittee ?
Senator Hayden. Yes, sir.
Senator Case. The matter is extremely important in view of the
representations that have already been made in this hearing with
reference to the first count as it was presented.
The counsel for Senator McCarthy draws our attention to some
of the wording there with the inference that that had a bearing upon
some of the early limitations of the subcommittee, and the second
paragraph, I think the one that relates the Morse amendment pro-
posed to the resolution of censure, specifically directs attention to a
letter dated November 21, 1953, which urged or requested Senator
McCarthy to a])pear before that committee.
Now, as of that date, November 21, 1953, was Senator Hennings
the chairman of the subcommittee ?
Senator Hayden. He was.
Senator Case. And he continued as chairman of that committee
until what date ?
Senator Hayden. Until the new committee took over on, I think,
the 12th of Januarv of the following year.
Senator Case. Did I say 1952?
The Chairman. You said 1953, as I remember.
Senator Case. November 21, 1952, should be the date of the letter
to which I referred. If I said 1953, 1 mispoke.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 369
Well, "with reference to this date, and I think, Senator Hayden,
you indicated it was January 16; you think it was January 12 or 16?
Senator Hayden. One day in January after the Senate had elected
a new Committee on Rules and Administration.
Senator Case. But, in any event, some days after the swearinp; in of
the Congress and the swearing in of the new Members of tlie Senate ?
Senator Hayden. Yes.
Senator Case. Were the old Members of the Senate sworn in on
Januarys, 1953?
Senator Hayden. There was no necessity for it. Only newly
elected Senators are sworn in.
Senator Case. Were any duties assigned to you or did you perform
any duties as chairman of the Kules and Administration Committee
after January 3, 1953?
Senator Hayden. I do not recollect there was anything of any
importance.
Senator Case. Did you assign rooms ?
Senator Hayden. No ; I assigned rooms up until the end of the year
and all the new Senators were in their rooms and settled down when
January 3 came. I made the assig-nments up to that time. There
were no further room assignments to be made after that date.
The Chairman. Will you yield there, Senator, for a question?
Senator Case. Yes.
The Chairman. The committee employees, the staff, are paid on the
15th of each month : are they not ?
Senator Hayden. Yes ; the same as any other committee.
The Chairman. You would have to sign the payroll so that they
could get their pay on the 15th of January.
Senator Hayden. Perhaps I did. I might have signed some pay-
roll.
The Chairman. You regularly signed the payroll, did you not, each
month ?
Senator Hayden. Xo: I did not sign the subcommittee payroll.
Senator Hennings signed it.
The Chairman. We are not particularly concerned at the moment
about the subcommittee, but whether you were a chairman of the full
committee at that time.
Of course, the subcommittee would take care of itself, but you were
still cliairman of the full committee.
As chairman of tlie full committee you signed the payroll regularly
for the staffs
Senator Hayden. Yes.
The Chairmai*. They are paid twice a month.
Senator Hayden. Yes; whatever was required of me to do, I did.
The Chairman. And the new organization was made on the 16th of
January ?
Senator Hayden. That is my recollection. I am not positive about
that date.
The Chairman. So, under ordinary circumstances, you would have
followed your custom during the entire period under discussion, and
you would have signed the payroll for the committee staff for the
first half of the following January, January 1953?
Senator Hayden. If I were the chairman at that time, I would.
370 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The Chairman. Of course, yon do not remember at the time, but
you could check back to see whether you did sign that ?
Senator Hayden. That could be found.
The Chairman. If it is very important, we can check and find out
from the Senate disbursing office whether you did, or you did not.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Case.
Senator Case. I think it is exceedingly important to find out
whether or not this committee existed as a legal committee following
January 3, 1953, and whether or not the Senate so recognized it.
Did this committee, headed by Senator Hennings, continue the con-
sideration of Senate Resolution 187, and Senate Resolution 304, being
the resolutions directing the investigation of certain matters in the
matter of Joseph R. McCarthy ?
Senator Hayden. My recollection is that that work, the actual work
of preparing that report was completed before the end of the calendar
year, but that the report, the distribution of the report, took place
early the next year.
Senator Case. Do you know when the report was filed?
Senator Hayden. No, I do not, unless there is a date there.
Senator Case. Did these subcommittees, and particularly this sub-
committee headed by Senator Plennings, have refeiTed to it other
matters in addition to this ?
Senator Hayden. Oh, yes, we had very important matters, and
that is what I was so concerned about, getting a functioning sub-
committee because here were documents coming in complaining about
the fact that Senator Potter was not duly elected and Senator Fergu-
son was not duly elected and Senator Chavez was not duly elected and
demanding an investigation.
Senator Case. Are you saying that the matters relative to the
Senator Chavez election, the Senator Ferguson election, and the
Senator Potter election were referred to this subcommittee for in-
vestigation ?
Senator Hayden. They were, and I attended hearings in each case
where the committee passed upon the evidence.
Mr. Williams. Sir, we cannot hear.
The Chairman. Just a moment. Mr. Williams says he cannot hear.
Bring your microphone up in front of you, Senator Hayden.
Senator Hayden. I said it was very important that there be three
members of the subcommittee because of these sworn statements that
came to the Committee on Privileges and Elections alleging wrong-
doing and violation of the election laws, and demanding investigation,
and so we employed investigators and sent them out to these States
and had them come back and make their reports to us.
We made the findings that were necessary and did everything that
was necessary to be done.
But unless you had three members, the way I reason it, which would
be a majority subcommittee of five, there could be no functioning.
It would be impossible and for that reason I took the place on the
committee.
Senator Case. Senator Hayden, was there any matter referred in
connection with the election of Senator Langer at that time?
Senator Hayden. There was complaint, but there were no sworn
complaints from certain citizens of his State about his conduct and
HEARmGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 371
we decided that inasmuch as, finally, nobody was going to swear to
his charges, that we would not pay attention to them.
Senator Case. Do you know if any official action was taken by the
committee with reference to
Senator McCaethy. Senator Case, I would if you would make it
clear for the record that the Senate was not in session, that there could
be no referral except a referral by Senator Hayden, by himself to his
own subcommittee, that there could be no formal referral by the Sen-
ate. I think that is important.
Senator Case. I will be glad to come to that.
Do you know of any official action being taken by the subcommittee
on the Potter, Ferguson, Chavez, Langer matters, official action that
was taken by this subcommittee that was recognized or accepted or
acted upon by the Senate ?
Senator Hayden. Well, the Senate was not called upon by any
action taken by either the subcommittee or the Senate Committee on
Rules and Administration, so far as the Langer or the Potter or the
Ferguson charges were concerned, because we didn't find anything
The Chairman. Just a moment. Senator. Aren't you mistaken
about Senator Ferguson ? He wasn't running last year.
Senator Hayden. Oh !
The Chairman. It was Senator Potter, of Michigan, and Blair
Moody.
Senator Hayden. That was the case.
The Chairman. Senator, you have referred to it all the way tlirough
as Senator Ferguson.
Senator Hayden. I am mistaken about that.
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Case. I think the chairman is correct in that.
Senator Hayden. That is right.
Senator Case. I have been accepting the references.
The Chairman. That is all right. Senator Johnson called it to
my attention.
Senator Case. Where you were referring to Senator Ferguson, you
were referring to the senatorial election in Michigan?
Senator Hayden. That is right.
Senator Case. And it should be Potter instead of Ferguson ?
Senator Hayden. That is right. I beg your pardon. In any event,
in those cases we found no occasion to^do anything.
In the New Mexico case, however, that was just a continuing opera-
tion. It was clearly evident that the matter would require a gi-eat
deal of study. We had reports of investigators, and it was clear the
Ciise had to go on.
Senator Case. Were these matters referred to the Committee on
Rules and Administration and by it to the Subcommittee on Privileges
and Elections by you, or by action of the Senate ?
Senator Hayden. The complaints would come to the Committee on
Rules and Administration, and, as chairman I would pass them on,
refer them to the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, the regu-
lar way it was handled.
Senator Case. Do you recall any other matters, responsibilities, or
duties that were referred to the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elec-
372 HEARIXGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
tions during the time that it was headed by Senator Hennings that
may have continued over and beyond January 3, 1953?
Senator Hayden. Not at the moment; I do not.
Senator Case. I am merely seeking, Mr. Chairman, and Senator
Hayden, too, and counsel, to determine whether or not there was offi-
cial recognition by the Senate of the committee.
In think, in view of the representations in tlie pleadings that have
been made, that it is important to determine whether or not we had
a valid subcommittee Avhen it was headed by Senator Hennings and
whether or not it could issue a valid request for Senator McCarthy
to appear before it, and whether or not, in turn. Senator ]\IcCarthy,
by any act or by expression, could be held contumacious or in contempt
of the committee.
It is certainly important to determine whether or not we had a valid
committee.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Ervin.
Senator Ervix. I just want to see if I understand the chronology
of the membei'ship of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections
of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
As I understand it, this subcommittee originally consisted of five
members — namely, Senator Gillette, Senater Welker, Senator Mon-
roney. Senator Hennings, and Senator Hendrickson, with Senator GiJ-
lette as chairman ?
Senator Hayden. That is correct.
Senator Ervin. Then Senator Welker and Senator Gillette
resigned ?
Senator Hayden. They did.
Senator Erat:n. Leaving Senator Hennings and Senator Hendrick-
son on the subcommittee ?
Senator Hayden. With Senator Monroney.
Senator Ervin. And then, after Senator Monroney resigned, you
appointed yourself as a member of the subcommittee in his stead ?
Senator Hayden. That is right.
Senator Ervin. Leaving the subcommittee composed of Senator
Hennings as chairman and you and Senator Hendrickson as members?
Senator Hayden . That i s correct.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Case.
Senator Case. Would the Chair indulge me for one further question ?
Senator Hayden, I have in my hand a copy of the Rules and ISIan-
ual of the LTnited States Senate, a bound copy, dated 1953. I have
it open to page 42, and want to ask you a question with reference to
the status of rule 25 during the time which we have been discussing.
At page 42, paragraph No. 2 :
Each standing committee shall continue and have the power to act until their
successors are appointed.
Paragraphs (a) :
Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, each standing com-
mittee and each subcommittee of any such committee is authorized to fix the
number of its members (but not less than one-third of its entire membership)
who shall constitute a quorum thereof for the transaction of .such business as may
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 373
be considered by said committee, subject to tbe provisions of section 133 (d) of
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.
Subparagraph (b) :
Each standing committee and each subcommittee of any such committee is au-
thorized to fix a lesser number than one-third of its entire membership who shall
constitute a quorum thereof for the purpose of taking sworn testimony.
Now, 3^ou have already testified you were chairman of the Com-
mittee on Rules and Administration at this period in 1952 and 1953.
Was there any change in that rule during 1952 or in January 1953?
Senator Hayden. I do not believe there was any change in it at all.
Senator Case. That is all.
The Chairman. Senator, I have another question : The Committee
on Interior and Insular Atl'airs had a custom, at least under the chair-
manship of Senator Hugh Butler, the late Senator Hugh Butler, of
the chairman becoming ex officio a member of all committees. Did
you have such a practice in your committee ?
Senator Hayden. No, there were no such practices.
The Chairman. Are there any further cj[uestions 'i
Senator McCarthy.
INIr. Wilhams.
You may be excused. Senator.
Senator Hayden. Thank you.
The Chairman. This is not by way of complaint, but by way of
explanation : The members of this committee have been in almost con-
tinuous session, even during the lunch hour, since 9 o'clock this morn-
ing, either in executive hearings or in public hearings. Our staff has
been working day and night for weeks since they have been appointed
to their positions. We have gone just about to the point where we can't
take much more and keep clear heads on this matter. So, we are going
now to recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 4 : 46 p. m., the hearing was recessed until 10 a. m.
Saturday, September 11, 1954.)
HEAEINGS ON SENATE EESOLUTION 301
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1954
United States Senate, Select
Committee to Study Censure Charges Pursuant
ro Senate Order on Senate Resolution 301,
Washington^ D. C.
The select ommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:06 a. m., in
the caucus room, 318 Senate Office Building, Senator Arthur V. Wat-
kins (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Watkins (chairman), Johnson (vice chairman),
Carlson, Case, Stennis, and Ervin.
Also present : Senator McCarthy ; E. Wallace Chadwick, counsel
to the committee ; Guy G. de Furia, assistant counsel to the committee ;
John M. Jex, clerk of the committee ; John W. Wellman, staff member ;
Frank Ginsburg and Ray R. McGuire, members of Senator Watkins'
staff on loan to the committee ; and Edward Bennett Williams, coun-
sel to Senator McCarthy, with his associates, Agnes A. Neill and
Brent Bozell.
The Chairman. I would appreciate it if the photographers would
cease their activities now. We want to get along with the hearing.
The committee will now be in session. You may continue with the
examination of Senator McCarthy, Mr. de Furia.
TESTIMONY OF SENATOR JOSEPH E. McCAETHY
Mr. de Furia. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McCarthy, you did appear before the Gillette-Hennings
subcommittee, did you not, in support of your resolution against
Senator Benton ?
Senator McCarthy. I did.
Mr. de Furia. The fact is, however. Senator, is it not, that you
did not appear before that same subcommittee in connection with the
charges made against you, either before or after the adoption by
the Senate of Senate Resolution 300 ?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. de Furia. And when you appeared before that subcommittee,
as I understand it. Senator, that was without the service of any sub-
pena upon you by the committee.
Senator McCarthy. Mo, but that was with a request that I appear.
Mr. de Furia. Was that in the form of a letter, sir ?
Senator McCarthy. Either a letter or a wire. I received no such
request in connection with the Gillette hearings on the Benton charges,
except when I was up in the north woods and did not receive it until
after the empanelment for my appearance had expired.
375
376 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. DE FuRiA. May I say, Senator, that is one of the questions this
committee no doubt will have to resolve, is it not, from the testimony
yoii oive ?
Senator McCarthy. Well, you will have to depend upon the testi-
mony.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes.
Senator McCarthy. If there is any testimony contrary to this, I
will be interested in hearing it.
Mr. DE Furia. Yes. Now, you did say, did you not, Senator, in
your letter to Senator Gillette of October 4, 1951, which is exhibit
No. 5, that you did not intend to read, much less answer, the charges
in the Benton resolution ?
Senator McCarthy. That sounds like the exact quote.
Mr. Williams. Just a moment. In the interest of accuracy, there
were no charges in the Benton resolution.
I think you have reference to the list of cases that were submitted
by Senator Benton in mimeographed form on September 28, 1951.
The resolution is of record here and contains no charges. I think
that question was framed on an inaccurate hypothesis.
Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Williams, may I call to your attention that I am
referring to Senator McCarthy's own letter in which he states that
he does not intend to read, much less answer the charges.
I would like to have a minute, Mr. Chairman, to look at Resolution
187.
The Chairman. You may take the time.
Mr. Williams. Your question was in the form of stating that there
were charges in the Benton resolution, which is not the fact. There
were no charges in the Benton resolution.
Senator McCarthy. I was referring to the charges made to the
press and in public. There were no charges in the re.solution.
Mr. DE Furia. In that connection, may I say, Mr. Chairman, that
Senate Resolution 187 of the 82d Congress, 1st session, August 6,
1951, speaks for itself.
Mr. Williams. I say "amen" to that, Mr. de Furia.
Mr. DE Furia. I am glad we are in agreement once.
Now, Senator McCarthy, in your letter to Senator Gillette, dated
December 6, 1951, which is exhibit No. 6, you did say, did you not:
When your Elections Snbcomnnttee, without Senate authorization, spends
tens of thousands of taxpayers' dollars for the sole purpose of digging up cam-
paign material against McCarthy, then the committee is guilty oi' stealing just
as clearly as though the members engnged in picking the pockets of the tax-
payers and turning the loot over to the Democrat National Committee.
Senator McCarthy. That is a correct quote.
Mr. DE Furia. In the same letter. Senator, did you not state :
While the actions of Benton and. some of the committee members
Senator McCarthy. Just a moment.
The Chairman. Just a little slower, Mr. de Furia.
Senator McCarthy. I have it now.
Mr. DE Furia. I will repeat.
Did you not state in that same letter :
While the actions of Benton and some of the committee members do not sur-
prise me, I cannot understand your being willing to label Guy Gillette as a
man who will head a committee which is stealing from the pockets of the
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 377
American taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars and then using this money to
protect the Democrat Party from the political effect of the exposure of Com-
munists in Government.
Senator McCarthy. That is a correct quote.
Mr. DE FuKiA. Did yon have any evidence, Senator McCarthy, to
support the statements of fact that you made in this letter i
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you ever produce that evidence ?
Senator McCarthy. It was produced in letters to the committee.
I pointed out to them exactly what I had in mind, that they were
going far beyond the Benton resolution, that they were going back
to 19o5, that they were making photostats, and I think that photo-
stats cost, I think in the neighborhood of $1,000 and the correspond-
ence they had with the bank, having nothing to do with wrongdoing,
requests for extension of time and payment of interests.
The bank has answered, granting extension of time, evidence of the
payment.
They did me one favor. They proved that no one ever lost one
penny by loaning money to McCarthy. They did not prove
Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the witness confine his
answer to the question.
Senator McCarthy. Let me finish my answer.
The Chairman. In the first place, the question, I do not think,
called for all of that.
Mr. Williams. I think, Mr. Chairman, the question asked for what
evidence he had of bad faith, to sum up the context of these two
paragraphs on the part of the committee. That was the question and
he is undertaking to answer that, and I think he is entitled to answer
that.
The Chairman. Then confine it strictly to evidence. That, of
course, would require the Senator to only produce such things as he
had evidence of.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Chairman, that was not my question. ]\Iy ques-
tion was whether he ever produced that evidence.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that I am trying
to answer counsel's question and if my answer is not responsive, why,,
the Chair will order it stricken, but I do think I should be allowed
to answer the questions without interrupation. My answers have
not been long. They have been confined mainly to yes and no answers.
When I feel that we must go beyond a yes or no answer, I do it
in an attempt to answer the questions as I understand the usual
court procedure which you are following, Mr. Chairman. I should
be allowed to answer.
If the answer is not responsive, you would order it stricken.
The Chairman. Of course, we are in a little different situation.
Counsel for the committee is not in a position to object at all. The
whole burden has been placed on the chairman to see that we follow
the rules. That is what puts me in the embarrassing position of taking
one side or the other, if I think one side or the other are wrong, and
counsel has been instructed that he cannot object.
Senator McCarthy. He has been objecting.
The Chairman. Well, he should not.
Senator McCarthy. Interrupting and objecting.
378 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The Chairman. Well, I call attention to the fact that he is trying
to ask — let us get the question and see what it was. It should be
responsive.
Would you please read the question ?
(The question was read by the reporter as follows: "Did you ever
produce that evidence?")
The Chairman. That is the question: "Did you ever produce the
evidence?", and the answer could be yes or no.
Senator McCarthy. The answer is the evidence has been produced.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Where was it produced. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. Produced by the committee at their own
invitation.
Mr. DE FuRiA. You did have available to you, did you not. Senator
McCarthy, an exact financial record of every penny spent by that sub-
committee?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. DE Furia. You could have gotten it, I mean, Senator; isn't
that correct ?
Senator McCarthy. I doubt that very much.
Mr. DE Furia. You did obtain from the subcommittee, however, a
record of their employees and salaries, did you not, sir?
Senator McCarthy. A record of some of the employees. I believe
the letter I got from Gillette indicated that there were 2 or 3 other
employees not named.
Mr. DE Furia. Yes, sir, but they did give you full information, did
they not, in reply to your inquiry about the employees?
Senator McCarthy. Well, we would have to refer to the letter. I
believe the letter gives a list of employees and says there are some
others. I am depending upon my memory on this.
The letter is on page G4.
I think that is a correct list of the employees, most likely. How-
ever, the full salary is not given. The base salary is given, which is
rather meaningless to the average person.
Mr. DE Furia. Do you have any evidence that that committee was
spending tens of thousands of dollars illegally. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. They were spending a vast amount of money
illegally. I don't know the exact figure. I know they were spending
a great amount of money illegally.
Mr. DE Furia. As I recall your testimony. Senator, yesterday you
said you voted in favor of Senate Resolution 300 testing the juris-
diction of that subcommittee. Are you correct in that, sir?
Senator McCarthy. Testing the jurisdiction only to investigate the
Benton resolution.
Mr. DE Furia. Yes, sir, but are you sure, sir, that you voted in favor
of that resolution?
Senator McCarthy. Yes. I am reasonably certain of that.
Mr. DE Furia. I call to your attention that the record shows that
there were :
Ayes — none ;
Nays — sixty ;
Thirty-six not voting,
and tliat you are registered as not voting.
Mr. Williams. I think the record is very clear on that, Mr. de Furia,
that he left before the vote was taken.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 379
Senator McCarthy. Yes. The record will show that I said I would
vote for the resolution. 1 urged the Senators to vote for it. I said
that I had to leave on a plane at 6 o'clock, or thereabouts.
You will find that in the record. I would consider that the same as
voting ipr it. In other words, I announced my position.
Mr. Williams. That whole colloquy is in the record to which I am
sure you are now referring, because I have a clear recollection of it.
Senator McCarthy. I think some of the Senators will recall that.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Now, passing. Senator, to the letter of November 21,
1052, which is exhibit 41, the subcommittee did "respectfully urge you
to arrange to come before us on or before November 25." Is that
correct, sir ?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. DE FuRiA. And, as I understand your testimony, you were away
on a hunting trip ancl vou did not receive that letter until November
28; is that right, sir?
Senator McCarthy. November 28, and I so informed the chairman
of the committee.
Mr. DE i^ uRiA. Now, is that the same day, sir, that you first saw the
telegram of November 21 from Senator Hennings to you ?
Senator McCarthy. I couldn't tell you from memory, but my letter
so indicates, and I am sure the letter is correct.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes, sir. Now, this telegram which has been offered
in evidence as committee exhibit No. 1 shows that it was sent in Wash-
ington on November 21 to you, sir, at Appleton, Wis. Is that your
home address. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. That is my home address.
Mr. DE FuRiA, And I take it you are rather well known in Appleton,
Wis.?
Senator McCarthy. I would think so.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Is your office there, too. Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. I have no office there.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Just your home?
Senator McCarthy. Yes. I live with my brother-in-law and sister
when I am in Appleton.
Mr. DE F'uRiA. Yes, sir. Was this telegram delivered there ? That
is what I am trying to find out.
Senator McCarthy. I understand it was delivered to the order of
the office of Attorney Van Susteren ; that he put it in the mail and
mailed it to Washington.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes, sir. Wlien you saw it, it was down here in Wash-
ington ; is that right ?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Now, I call to your attention the black stamp at the
top of the telegram, which I believe, sir, you have seen. I asked you
this morning, or I told you, I think
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. DE FuRiA. That I wanted to ask you a question about that.
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. DE FuRiA. It is "Kecd December 1, 1952." Can you tell us who
put that date on the telegram ?
Senator McCarthy. 1 assume that it was the stamp put on in INIr.
Van Susteren's office.
52461—54 25
380 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. DE FuRiA. That is what I don't understand, Senator. You saw
the telegram in Washington on November 28, and, yet, you say, as I
understand it, that this was put on in Wisconsin by Van Susteren.
Senator McCarthy. I assume so. I don't knoAV. I was up in the
north woods at the time, as I recall. I was not in the position to re-
ceive any telegrams, any mail.
A\^ien I came back to Washington, I received the wire which re-
quested an appearance, but placed the time limit of November 25, I
believe, which was 3 days before I returned.
I informed the chairman of the committee of this. He made no
further request that I appear before the committee ; and that, may I
emphasize, is the only request that I ever received to appear before the
committee. Prior to that I had received offers to appear, if I wanted to.
So, it was impossible to comply with that request.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Senator, I hesitate very much to leave the record in
this situation. You said you had this telegram at least on November
28.
Now, I am asking you about a stamp of ?> days after that, and, as I
understand it, you are now saying that the stamp of Deceml)er 1 must
have been put on in Wisconsin, which would be prior to November 28.
Senator MoCartht. No. Let's stick to our first question, Mr.
de Furia. You talked about a stamp of November 21 or 22.
Mr. DE Furia. No, sir. I am sorry, sir. if I have confused you. I
am talking about "Rec'cl December 1 — - — "
Mr. Williams. Are you talking about
Mr. DE Furia. "1952"."
Mr. Williams. Excuse me.
Are you talking now about not the red stamp, but the black stamp
at the top ?
Mr. DE Furia. The black stamp at the top.
Senator McCarthy. Could I see the wire?
Mr. DE Furia. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. What is that exhibit, Mr. de Furia. to which you
made reference a moment ago, wherein this wire was acknowledged?
Mr. DE Furia. I don't believe I referred to it, but I can find it in
a minute.
Exhibit 44.
I just received your wire of November 22.
That is by Senator McCarthy, under date of November 28, and I
presume here at Washington.
Senator McCarthy. Well, I can tell you apparently I had received
it or I wouldn't write a letter acknowledging it.
Mr. DE Furia. Well, I am trying to find out just when you did
receive it. Senator.
Senator McCarthy. Well, sir, obviously I couldn't tell you today
what date I received that wire. I referred to it in the letter dated
November 28. So I assume it had been received.
Mr. DE Furia. Can you tell us what day you got back to Washing-
ton from your hunting trip ?
Senator McCarthy. The letter says I got back on the 27th, I believe.
Mr. Williams. 27th.
Senator McCarthy. And I assume that is correct.
HEARINGS On senate RESOLUTION 301 381
Mr. WiLi.iAMS. The letter, Mr. de Furia, which is exhibit 44, recites
that, "I have just received your wire of December 22." Here we have
the original record.
Mr. DE FxjKiA. Yes. We put that in the record, as I recall. That
was mailed from Washington, D. C.
Senator IVIcCarthy. And could I read the entire wire, so the com-
mittee will know what was written ? I mean the entire letter. The
letter is dated November 28, 1952 :
Dear Senator Hennings : I just received your wire of November 22 in which
you state that you would like to have me appear before your committee between
Novemlier 22 and 2~). As you were informed by me prior to the time you sent
this wire, I was not expected to return to Washington until Thursday, November
27, on which date I did return.
Sincerely yours,
Joe McCarthy.
So that he knew that I was not in the city.
Mr. DE Furia. Is it your testimony, Senator, that possibly you would
have been willing to appear before that subcommittee to make some
i-eply or answer to the charges against you, pending before that sub-
committee?
Senator McCarthy. I told Senator Gillette that, if I were ordered
to appear, I would appear.
jMr. DE Furia. Did you not say, though, several times. Senator, and
actually on the floor of the Senate, that a Senator was not subject to
subpena ?
Senator McCarthy. A Senator is not subject to subpena during the
term of the Senate. He is subject to subpena after the Senate has ad-
journed. Yrhether he is subject to subpena when the Senate is in re-
cess, I frankly don't know.
Mr. DE Fukia. Was the Senate in session, or in recess, at the period
around November 25, November 28, and December 1?
Senator McCarthy. I do not know whether it was in recess or
whether it had adjourned.
Mr. Williams. It had adjourned. I think we could take judicial
notice that it had adjourned on November
The CiiAiRiMAN. Y^iatever the record shows. My memory is that
we had adjourned.
JMr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Senator IVIcCarthy. The record will show that. I do not remember.
Mr. DE Furia. In the letter you just read, Senator, I note you did not
say, "I would be glad to appear at some later time."
Senator McCarthy. Did you note that ?
Mr. DE Furia. Yes.
Senator JNIcCarthy. Good.
Mr. DE Furia. Do you have any comment to make about that, sir?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. DE Furia. Did you have any intention of appearing before this
subcommittee ?
Senator McCarthy. If I were ordered to appear, I would have
appeared. I made that very clear to the chairman of the committee —
not only if I were subpenaed. I made it clear to him that I would
not appear merely if they accorded me the right to appear; that I
had no desire to appear before that committee. I made it clear to
him that I thought they were not conducting an honest investigation,
382 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
and that I would not request any right to appear, but that I would
honor a subpena or an order.
Mr. DE FuRiA. I should like to know if there is any distinction be-
tween an order and a subpena, as you use the word "order." Did you
mean you would not appear unless you were subpenaed ?
Senator INIcCartiiy. No. An order would be a subpena.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Now, nowhere in this long corres])ondence
The Chairjman. Just a minute. As a matter of fact, I would like
to call to the Senator's attention, and get his point of view on it, his
remembrance — you remember he testified to a conversation he had
with Senator Gillette on tlie floor of the Senate.
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
The Chairman. In which, as I recall, you told him that you would
not appear unless you were subpenaed ?
Senator McCarthy. Eitlier subpenaed or ordered, whichever word
1 used. I used them interchangeably.
The Chairman. Did you also tell him at that same time that you
would not appear, unless you were giveii permission to cross-examine?
Senator McCarthy. No.
The Chairman. Are you sure about that, Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. I am sure about that. I told him I would not
accept one, when they said, "You may appear, if you wish" — that I
did not wish to appear, unless I had the right to cross-examine. In
other words, I would not appear unless I had the right to cross-
examine, unless they ordered me to appear; in which case I recognized
their right to do that. I told him I would do that during the session,
even though they had no right to subpena me. I told him I would
not question an order or the subpena. I told that to the press, also.
The Chairman. I was calling that to your attention, because I had
a conversation by telephone, about your discussion of that point with
Senator Gillette. I am not going to repeat what he said, but I
wanted to be sure you understood fully the situation, and I wanted
to get your point of view and your version of what happened. So
I asked you that question, if you did not say to Senator Gillette at
that time that you would not appear, unless you were permitted to
cross-examine ?
Senator McCarthy. The answer (1) is no, and (2) Gillette never
requested that I appear. You will find that in the record.
The Chairman. I am not stating that he did. All I am doing is
to ask the question.
Mr. Williams. In the light of the Chair's reference to his conversa-
tion with Senator Gillette, I might say, in passing, that at the time
this request was made of Senator JNIcCarthy to appear — which never
was communicated to him — the committee was no longer taking evi-
dence which he could cross-examine. They were simply asking for
a hearing. Of course, he could not cross-examine that.
The Chairman. That is a matter of argument, when he comes to
that.
Senator McCarthy. It is not a matter of argument ; it is a matter
of fact.
The Chairman. Well, you have already testified to your version
of the facts, and I am not disputing it, except that I merely wanted,
for the purpose of the record, to get that clear.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 383
I did not relate, or attempt to relate, what occurred in Senator
Gillette's subcommittee, I merely asked you that question.
You may proceed.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Senator, you did not write to Senator Hennings,
telling him that you were sorry that you were away, or anything to
that effect, but that you would be glad to appear on another date.
Mr. Williams. I think you asked that question, and he answered it.
I ask tliat it not be repeated over and over again.
Ths Chairman. Well, it is repetition. We cannot repeat all that
was asked before. I think it was answered.
Mr. DE FuRiA. All right, sir.
Now, I understood you wrote a letter, did you not, to Senator
Hennings, dated December 1, 1952, stating, in part, as follows :
I would therefore ordinarily not dignify your committee by answering your
letter of November 21. However, I decided to give you
Senator McCarthy. What exhibit is that?
Mr. DE FuRiA. 45.
Senator McCarthy. On what page ?
Mr. DE FuRiA. 102.
Senator McCarthy. That is December 1 ?
Mr. DE Ftjria. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Ready, Mr. de Furia.
Mr. DE Furia. I will start again with the quotation :
I would therefore ordinarily not dignify your committee by answering your
letter of November 21. However, I decided to give you no excuse for
claiming •
Senator McCarthy. I wonder if you would not begin at the be-
ginning of the letter, and read the entire letter that you are referring
to?
Mr. DE Furia. I should prefer to do it in my own way, sir.
The Chairman. This is cross-examination. I doubt that the wit-
ness can dictate to the cross-examiner what he is to include in his
questions. If the questions are involved, I will rule upon it. Proceed.
Mr. DE Furia. I continue :
I would therefore ordinarily not dignify your committee by answering your
letter of November 21. However, I decided to give you no excuse for claiming in
your report that I refused to give you any facts. For that reason, you are
being informed that the answer to the six insulting questions in your letter of
November 21 is "no."
Does that indicate. Senator, any intention or desire on your part to
appear, by order or otherwise ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. de Furia, I had no desire to appear. The
chairman was informed I would appear if I were subpenaed or ordered
to do so. I had no desire to appear before that committee, and I had
no intention of appearing, unless I was ordered, suhpenaed to do so.
Mr. DE Furia. You knew, of course, did you not, Senator, that the
charges pending before that committee, and which were set forth
in a letter from the chairman to you, reflected rather seriously, sir,
upon your character and activities?
Mr. Williams. I want to interrupt there, if I may, Mr. Chairman,
because I think Mr. de Furia has made a very unfortunate selection
of words — "charges." There were no charges on which those ques-
384 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
tions were predicated. There was no evidence in tlie record support-
infj those questions.
The committee, as the record show^s, had been conductino' an inves-
tigation, and the investigation contained only hearsay reports; and
those so-called, as yon say, charges, were backed by nothing; so ob-
viously they could not have been charges ; they were questions.
The Chairman, I will say counsel might reframe his question, and
instead of referring to them as "charges" refer to them as "matters."
Mr. DE FuRiA. I think that point is well taken, sir.
The letter from Chairman Hennings to Senator McCarthy, dated
November 21, 1952, exhibit No. 41, states:
The subcommittee desires to make inquiry with respect to the following
matters —
Then are listed six matters. I should have used the word "matters"
perhaps, rather than "charges."
Now, my point. Senator, is this : You knew that those matters were
of sufficient moment ordinarily to justify your making some reply; is
that not correct?
Senator McCarthy. They were six insulting questions asked by the
committee — by a Senator, not by a legal committee. I answered his
questions. I told him the answer was "no." They had previously
been informed that, if I were subpenaed, I would ap])ear.
Mr, DE FuRiA. Well, is it your position. Senator, that when matters
of that serious nature are pending against a Member of the United
States Senate, instead of appearing and making an answer, he can call
them "insulting" and need not appear?
Senator McCarthy, They are no more matters than the 46 state-
ments made by Senator Flanders.
Mr, DE Furl\, Now, I call to your attention the fact that in yes-
terday's testimony, or perhaps the day before, you stated that the
fact that the telegram of November 14, 1952, which was never sent,
was somehow included in the H-H-H report, was a completely dis-
honest fact. Now, did vou mean that, Senator?
Senator McCarthy, Yes, I meant that.
The Chair3Iax. I avouIcI like to inquire, because this is quite im-
]:)ortant, and the committee would like to know, I am sure, whether
you were charging the individual members of that committee with
dishonesty in putting that in the report because, after all is said and
done, they were responsible for the report.
Senator McCarthy. Somebody was dishonest in putting into the
report the wire that was never sent, and indicating it had been sent
when, on the face of it, it appeared it had not been sent. That was
Senator, dishonest. That was an attempt to create the wrong impres-
sion. Tliis was a strong request that I appear before the committee.
No such request was ever sent. ^AHioever put this in the record knew
that because it is written on the face of it that it had not been sent.
The Chairman, I was asking you about the individual Senators,
Do you, in that statement that it was wholly dishonest, are you ac-
cusing those individual Senators — just a moment — who were responsi-
ble for the report, signed their report? Are you charging them with
dishonesty?
Senator McCarthy. I don't know which Senators knew that this
was included and that it had not been sent. Anv Senator who knew
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 385
that tliis wire liad not been sent and signed the report was not honest.
Which ones knew, 1 don't know. Somebody knew of it, because thi's
wire on its face showed it had not been sent.
The Chairman. It showed in pencil notation. \Vliether or not that
was bindini!: is another question.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Just a moment, let me finish this matter.
Wliat I am trviii": to find out. Senator, is your attitude toward tlie
members of that committee.
Senator McCarthy. Senator
The Chairman. Just a moment, let me finish. There has been a
number of exhibits introduced and received in which you admitted tJiat
you wrote, it seemed to me, that in the very beginning before the
committee had hardly gotten under way, you were expressing your
opinion of this committee.
Xow, I am not going to say what j^ou said, but the letters show for
themselves.
We are very much interested in your attitude toward the member-
ship of this committee. We don't think it is quite fair to pass it off
to the staff, or anything of that sort, for what was in the report,
because, after all, the individual Senators who make up the committee
and who sign a report are responsible for what is there.
Senator ^IcCarthy. First, I will answer the first part.
The Chairman. That is why I asked you the other day if you did
not think it possible an honest mistake could have been made in in-
cluding that telegram wdiich had the pencil notation on it that it was
not sent.
Senator McCarthy. First, let me answer the first part of your ques-
tion, Senator.
You said before the investigation got under way, I was
The Chairman. Fairly well under way.
Senator McCarthy. You are incorrect in that.
The Chlvirman. I may be, but I am just quoting from memory.
Senator McCarthy. Let me give you that correct. I know all
about this matter; I have been living with it. It had been under
way. They had been going far beyond the resolution, investigating
things they have no right to investigate ; going back beyond the time
that I was even old enough to run for Senator, investigating the
income-tax returns of my father, who died before I was elected.
So I knew those facts. So that investigation was under way, No. 1.
No. 2, I say that somebody took that wire which on its face showed
it had not been sent and made that a part of the record.
Who did that, I don't know. Whoever did it was dishonest.
The Chairman. You know who is responsible for the report;
do you not ?
I am getting right to the heart of the thing. The Senators who
signed the report ordinarily are responsible for the report, what it
contains.
Senator McCarthy. Some of them did not read the report and I
am not accusing any Senator who did not know of this, who did not
know this had not been sent, of being dishonest in this respect.
Someone, Mr. Chairman, included a wire, a wire very important to
this case, Imowing that it had not been sent. Whoever did that was
dishonest.
386 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Which of the Senators signed the report knew of this, if any, I
don't know. I have no way of knowing.
In fact — strike that.
The Chairman. How mnch do you want stricken? All of your
answer? You said "strike that."
Mr. Williams. He obviously meant only when he made a false
start.
The Chairman. If that is what he means
Senator McCarthy. I want nothing stricken.
For example, in this wire it says :
Your continued refusal to cooperate with the committee in its efforts to
carry out the instructions of tlie United States Senate would appear to pre-
vent— it says "prevent," but it must mean "present" — a conscious disregard
by you for the Senate's authority and a desire to prevent a disclosure of the
facts.
Mr. Williams. I think Mr. cle Furia pointed out yesterday the
word "prevent" should be "reflect" as it is contained in the original
of the wire that was not sent.
Senator McCarthy. Again, I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that I don't
know who was responsible for this dishonest act. Somebody was.
The Chairman. Senator, in calling it to your attention, I am not
necessarily disputing what you said. I am only calling attention to
the possibility that there may have been an honest mistake and it seems
that you won't admit there is any possibility of there being an honest
mistake in that respect.
Senator McCarthy. It is a very remote possibility when you have a
wire that was never sent, on the face of it shows that it was not sent,
and it is put in as an exhibit, and the exhibit deletes the words "not
sent." That, to me, appears to be nothing less than dishonest.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, if I may say so, the significance of
this wire is that the content is so much stronger than anything that has
theretofore been sent or the wire which, in fact, was sent, that it is very
interesting to observe.
The Chairman. It is very interesting and that is the reason I am
asking some questions about it.
Senator Case, I think, desired to be recognized.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, there is a little evidence on this in the
report which is already in the record to which attention has not been
directed.
On page 55 of the printed copy of the Hennings-Hayden-Hendrick-
son report, there appears an index of the exhibits in the appendix, and
No. 42, it will be noted, the description of the exhibit appearing as
exhibit 42, is a telegram dated November 21, 1952, from Senator Hen-
nings to Senator McCarthy, and it appears at page 99 of the report.
That is the telegram to which reference has been made. That is the
telegram appearing on 99, listed as exhibit 42 ; but as is obvious from
the testimony already given, the telegram dated November 21, 1952, is
not the telegram appearing as exhibit No. 42.
It occurs to me that whoever prepared the appendix, index, which
appears at page 55, intended that the telegram dated November 21,
1952, should appear ; but that somehow in the assembly of the exhibits
or the material, the copy supplied to the printer was the undated tele-
gram but which, as I previously pointed out, appears to have been
prepared on November 14 but apparently was never sent.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 387
Senator McCarthy. You are not asking a question ?
Senator Case. No, I am not asking a question ; I am just pointing it
out. I think in an inquiry of this sort, the purpose is to determine the
facts in the case and the index clearly indicates the intent of whoever
ju-epared the index of the appendix was to have the telegram of Novem-
ber 21, but apparently the copy supplied to the printer was of the
other telegram.
The Chairman. The reason for the questions I have been asking
I think should be apparent. However, I should like to mention also in
addition to that fact I think the heart of the matter the committee
is investigating at this particular moment is the attiude of the Senator
from Wisconsin with respect to that committee. In fact, that is the
heart of the charges that he had a contumacious attitude in showing
contempt for it. That is the reason I wanted to show up as much as
possible, and you have expressed a very strong feeling yesterday when
you said that this was dishonest. You may be right. I am not saying
whether you are right or wrong in your conclusion, but at any rate
I wanted to be sure exactly how you felt about it because that is the
heart of this charge.
Senator McCarthy. INIr. Chairman, I think the charge is that I
refused to appear before the committee when requested to do so. Re-
gardless of how I felt about their — there is no secret about how I felt
about them.
The point is that T was never requested to appear except at a time
when I was not available and when they knew I was not available.
Wlien I returned, they received answers to their requests.
It is not a question of how I felt about them. That is no secret.
The Chairman. Well, your entire conduct with respect to the com-
mittee, I think, is subject to proper investigation.
My attention has been called to the amendment by Mr. Fulbright,
which comes under incident 1 :
Although repeatedly invited to testify by a committee of this Senate headed
by the Senator from Iowa, the junior Senator from Wisconsin denounced the
committee and contemptuously refused to comply with its requests.
Senator McCarthy. It is a false statement. I was not repeatedly
invited to appear.
The Chairman. I am merely calling attention to the charge that
we have here, the language of it. I think it bears out what I was say-
ing a few moments ago.
Senator McCarthy. I think it should be clear, Mr. Chairaian, by
now, that this is a false statement ; that I was not repeatedly requested ;
that I was only requested on the 21st by wire, which I did not receive
until the 28th, beyond the time limit of the 25th, so it was impossible to
comply with the request.
So there were no requests. The record will show that.
The Chairman. I have finished, as far as I am concerned.
You may proceed.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Senator, have you referred to the Senator from Ver-
mont as senile on more than one occasion ?
Senator McCarthy, I don't recall on how many occasions.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Was it more than once, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. It might well be.
Mr. DE FuRiA, To the press and to the public?
388 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator McCarthy. I am inclined to think so.
Mr, DE FuRiA. Is there any doubt about it, Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. There is no doubt that I thought he was senile
and referred to him as senile.
Mr. DE FuRiA. When you returned to Washington, I think it was
August 31, sir, just before these hearings started, did you not say to
the newspapermen who met you at the airport, "There is no question
about Senator Flanders being senile. If he isn't, let him prove it."
Senator McCarthy. I don't recall having made that statement.
Mr. DE FuRiA. You do not recall whether you made it?
Senator McCarthy. I don't recall that statement.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Do you think you might have made it, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. I say, I don't recall having made it.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Does it reflect your opinion in the matter so that you
might have made it?
Senator McCarthy. Wlien I said I thought he was senile, I thought
he was senile,
Mr. DE FuRiA. Do you think you were justified in referring to a
Member of the United States Senate, one of your colleagues, in terms
such as that ?
Senator McCarthy. Because you are a Member of the United
States Senate, you are not free from criticism. There is nothing,
there is no halo that surrounds the throne. I may say that his lan-
guage concerning me was much stronger than that, but if you think a
man is senile, he is engaging in improper activities, you have a perfect
right to say that you think he is senile. That is part of our freedom
of speech.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Senator, you said the Gillette-Hennings Committee
was dishonest for looking into your conduct and you say Senator Hen-
nings is senile for criticizing you.
The Chairman. He didn't mean Senator Hennings,
Senator McCarthy, I didn't say Senator Hennings was senile.
Mr. DE Furia. Senator Flanders. The part of my question is: Do
you think it is proper for you, sir, to refer to your colleagues in the
United States Senate in those terms ?
Senator McCarthy. Not if you do it on the floor of the Senate,
Rules provide you can be set down off the floor of the Senate. There
is no special privilege which a Member of the Senate has. After the
obscenities he had voiced about me, the ridiculous statements he had
made, I was convinced he was senile. I had a perfect right to say
that I thought he was senile, regardless whether he was a Senator or
not. In other words, being a Senator puts him in no special category
when he is off the Senate floor. On the Senate floor there are certain
rules.
Mr. DE Furia. Now, may we pass, Senator, to another part of this
situation, categories 2 and 3 ?
Did I understand you correctly in your testimony yesterday that
your copy of the two-and-one-quarter page paper, in your opinion,
did not contain any security information ?
Senator INIcCarthy. That is right.
Mr. DE FiTRiA. Now, on page 785 of yesterday's testimony. Senator,
you asked the chairman to delete certain names before the paper was
received in evidence ; did you not ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 389
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. DE FiTRiA. Why did you make that request of the Chair if the
paper did not contain security information ?
Senator McCarthy. Because that is a document belonging to my
committee. We have a rule that we do not make public any names
unless and until the individual named can appear before the committee
and answer the charges against him.
We follow that practice in all cases possible where a man is named
as a Communist. He is in the room. He is called forward and al-
lowed to affirm or deny.
INIr. DE FuRiA. Then, as I understand it, you do not think that the
names of suspected Communists or subversives is security information ?
Senator McCarthy. The names are not security information. Tlie
information about them would be security.
Mr. DE Furia. Well, then, why did you want those names deleted ?
Senator McCarthy. I told you.
]Mr. Williams. He just answered the question, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McCarthy. Let me answer the question again so that there
will be no doubt in his mind.
I told 3'ou, ]Mr. de Furia. Let me try to give it to you again.
The rule of our committee is that we do not make names public
unless the individual is available to answer the charges against him
and, being the chairman of that committee, I requested the Chair of
this committee to follow the rule of our committee and delete the
names, because making public those names would be a violation of the
rules of tlie committee of which I am chairman.
I cannot put that in clearer language.
]Mr. DE Furia. Did you make that same request at the time of the
Army-McCarthy hearings ?
Senator McCarthy. I believe I suggested the names be deleted.
Mr. DE Furia. You believe it. Do you know whether you did or
not ?
Senator McCarthy. I do not know whether I did or not.
Mr. DE Furia. Now, yesterday you said you were going to
Senator McCarthy. In fact, I am not even sure it was offered in
evidence.
It was given to Mr. Stevens with the request that he tell us whether
or not it was in his files. It was handed to Mr. Jenkins.
The record would show, but I doubt whether it was offered in
evidence.
Mr. DE Furia. You tried to get it read, did you not. Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. I wanted the Senators to look at it.
Mr. DE Furia. I am asking you, sir, you tried to get it read in
public and over the television cameras ?
Senator McCarthy. I could have read it over the television cameras
if I wanted to do so.
Mr. DE Furia. And you would have read the names that you asked
the chairman to delete ?
Senator jMcCarthy. I could have read it over television. I did not.
The Chairman. The question is. Did you offer to read it ?
Senator McCarthy. No, I did not.
The Chairimak. Just a moment, IMr. Williams.
390 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. I will have to interpose when he asks a question
that is predicated on any facts and asks it in a way which assumes that
it is true when it is untrue. I will continue to do that so long as
the Chair permits me.
Senator McCarthy. The question is, Did I offer to read it over tele-
vision, and the answer is "No." I was asked to read it over television
and I did not. The answer is "No."
The Chairman. Was that in open session ?
Senator McCarthy. I would not be in open session unless it were
over television.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you ask the right to cross-examine Secretary
Stevens about that letter ?
Senator McCarthy. I did.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Is there any question whatever. Senator, that it was
your purpose at that time to disclose what was in that letter ?
Senator McCarthy. I did not intend to disclose the names, other
than the name of Aaron Copland whose name had been discussed.
Mr. DE Furia. Did you make that intention apparent to any mem-
bei'S of the committee or counsel at the time ?
Senator McCarthy. I do not think I got to that f)oint.
Mr. DE Furia. Now those names, including the name of Aaron Cop-
land, had the top-secret classification of the FBI at that time ; is that
right?
Senator McCarthy. Would you repeat that question ?
Mr. DE Furia. The names in that letter, including the name of Aaron
Copland, which was disclosed were under the highest classification of
the FBI at that time?
Senator McCarthy. The FBI had never classified the two and
one-quarter page document.
Mr. DE Furia. In spite of what Mr. Hoover said and what Attor-
ney General Brownell said.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Hoover never said he classified the two and
one-quarter page document, if I recall.
Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Hoover did say that that was classified during
the Army-McCarthy hearings and could not be revealed by anyone.
Senator McCarthy. That is incorrect.
Mr. DE Furia. May I pass to another matter. Senator ?
You said yesterday that you would make an inquirv of Avhether you
sent telegrams to the six other members of the Permanent Subcom-
mittee on Investigations to inquire whether you could release the offi-
cial transcript of General Zwicker's testimony. Have you checked
upon that. Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. I have.
Mr. DE Furia. Can you enlighten the committee ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, in fact we have at least one wire from one
of the Senators in answer to the wire which we sent.
Mr. DE Furia. Wliat was the wire you sent, sir ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 391
Senator INIcCartiiy. I cannot quote it verbatim. It was a wire in
which we pointed out, I believe to the best of my knowledge — I have
been handed what purports to be a copy of the wire which is headed :
LLD003
SYNA 475 PD
NEW YORK, N. Y.
21, 1057 PMA
This is to Senator Jackson, Senate Office Building, Washington,
D.C.
In view of the fact there has been raised a serious question as to what testi-
mony the General Zwiclier testimony —
It should be :
The testimony of the General Zwicker case shows plus the fact a number of
Senators, the Secretary of the Army, and the general himself have indicated
a desire to have this testimony made public. I am authorizing the official
recorder to make available to the public at 12 noon, February 22, testimony of
General Zwicker taken at New York City February IS, unless objected to by
subcommittee members. If you have any objection and encounter difficulty in
reaching me, please notify the recorder, Harold Alderson, 306 Ninth Street, NW.,
AVashington, D. C. Copies have been ordered delivered to desks of all sub-
committee members earliest possible moment this morning.
Joe McCarthy,
Senate Permanent Suicommittee of Investigations.
Mr. DE FuRiA. You sent that then, sir, on February 21; is that
correct ?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. DE FuRLv. That was 3 days after General Zwicker's hearing?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did I understand you to say yesterday that when
you revealed to the press part of what happened at the Zwicker— —
The Chairman. Just a moment. I cannot keep up with the exami-
nation. There is a matter called to my attention here and I have to
make rulings as we go along, and I cannot read a memorandum which
was put up to me and listen to you at the same time.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Senator, let me start that question again, please, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Certainly.
Mr. DE FuRiA. As I understand you to say yesterday, that immedi-
ately after General Zwicker's executive session, and you revealed to
the press parts of what had transpired, that you did that on the
authority of yourself, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Rainville.
Senator JSIcCarthy. No; I told you that that was the practice of
the subcommittee that we had long followed ; known to the members
of the subcommittee.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Well, on whose authority did you tell the press what
had happened at that executive hearing?
Senator McCarthy. Because that was our practice.
Mr. DE Furia. On whose authority. Senator ?
Senator McCarthy, I say, because that was the practice of the sub-
committee. So we can assume it was on the authority of the sub-
committee.
Mr. DE Furia. Sir, I don't want to call you evasive, but I would
like to have an answer to my question: On whose authority did you
do that?
392 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator McCarthy, I told you that I did it because it was our prac-
tice that we had followed at all times. The subcommittee knew of
this practice. Different members were present when it was followed,
and there was no disagreement about the practice.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Chairman, I submit to you, sir, that I would
Hke to have an answer to my question.
Mr. Williams. I think, Mr. Chairman
The Ch AIRMAN. Just a moment.
Mr. Williams. This has been asked 3 times, and he has gotten the
same answer 3 times, which states the Senator's position.
I am sorry to interrupt, but when he repeats it
The Chairman. I am going to rule he can't ask it any more. 1
think, whether the answer is satisfactory or not, he has at least an-
swered it, and that will stand as Senator McCarthy's answer.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes, sir.
Now, were there seven Senators, Senator, on that subcommittee at
that time ?
Senator McCarthy. At the time of the Zwicker testimony?
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. There were.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Now, in the Army-McCarthy hearings, Senator, I
call to your attention the hearing of May 27, 1954, at page 3915, vol-
ume 22, which was read into the record of these proceedings.
Senator McCarthy. I would want a copy of that before I would
be cross-examined on it.
Mr. Williams. Do you have that, sir?
Mr. DE FuRiA. I am going to call to your attention a quotation from
your remarks, sir.
Now, if you would like to look at that, I have no objection.
Senator McCarthy. Do you have the transcript?
Mr. Williams. Are you going into the colloquy on solicitation,
Mr. de Furia ?
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes.
The Chairman. Before we leave this other matter, I think you
were reading — I was engaged for a moment elsewhere — a copy of a
telegram.
Mr. Williams. If you will wait just a minute, I can get that.
The Chairman. I would like to have that. The committee would
like to see it.
Mr, Williams. I have it, Mr. de Furia.
Thank you.
Senator McCarthy. Yes, Mr. de Furia.
Mr. DE Furia. I think the chairman is occupied, sir.
Mr. Williams. I noticed that was postmarked midnight instead of
February 21, I think the Senator testified September 21.
Senator McCarthy. It would be on the 20th.
Mr. DE Furia. That is the telegram that the Senator sent
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Mr. DE Furia. To the other members of the subcommittee.
Mr. WiLiJAMS. I think it was sent at midnight.
The Chairman. Does it show on the face of it ? I didn't notice.
Mr. Williams. Yes,
The Chairman. You may proceed.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 393
Mr. DE FuRiA. Senator McCarthy, calling to your attention that
particular page of the testimony in the Army-McCarthy hearing, I
have it you said :
and I will continue to receive information such as I received the other day.
Do you recall, Senator, whether you were then refering to your copy
of the 214-p^ge paper?
Senator McCarthy. I received the 2i/4 page in 1953. That was
not received the other day.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes, sir. That is the point of my question. There
is an ambiguity there that I am asking you to clarify for me, if you
can.
Senator McCarthy. I don't know what information we were re-
ferring to. It was something received the other day. Just what
that was, I don't know.
Mr. DE Ftjria. All right, sir.
On page 3918, which immediately follows that, the same date. May
27, 1954, volume 22, I think. Senator, you refer several times to the
duty of the 2 million Federal employees to give us "any information"
about graft, corruption, communism and treason ; is that correct, sir ?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. DE FuRiA. I call to your attention that in the first excerpt on
3915 you used the word "information" and again on 3918 you used
the word "information"; is that correct?
Senator McCarthy. If you have the transcript that shows I used
the word "information," I am sure you wouldn't misquote it.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Now, I call to your attention page 7014, voliune 35
of the hearing of June 16, 1954.
Do you have that, Mr. Williams ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, we have that.
Mi\ DE FuRiA. In that you stated the following:
While I am chairman of the committee I will receive all the information I
can about wrongdoing in the executive department. I will give that information
to the American people.
Is that correct, sir ?
Senator McCarthy. I don't have that quote before me ; but if you
say that is a correct quote from the transcript, I will take your word
for it.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Now, I call to your attention at least in those quota-
tions. Senator, you have always used the word "information," and I
am asking whether you make any differentiation between information
and knowledge.
Mr. WiLJLiAMS. I think, in order to clear that question up, it is neces-
sary for us to know what distinction you make between those two
terms.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Well, by information, I would include rumor, mali-
cious utterance, suspicion, scandal, spite, credible information, bona
fide information, dishonest information — a multitude of things — and
I am trying to find out what Senator McCarthy meant when he used
the word "information."
Mr. WnxiAMS. What do you mean by "knowledge" ?
I don't understand the distinction.
The Chairivian. I assume it is all right if counsel wants to answer,
but it is hardly necessary to
394 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. I don't know how a witness can answer the ques-
tion—— ■
The Chairivian. Well, this witness is an intelligent gentleman. I
think he can answer it.
Senator McCarthy. I am referring here, obviously, to valid in-
formation.
Ml". DE FuRiA. Did you ever say that in your public utterances, ask-
ing these 2 million employees to give you
Senator McCarthy. Oh, that is very clear from the statements that
we are referring to valid information
^to
Mr. DE Furia. That
Senator McCarthy. Of dishonesty and wrongdoing.
Mr. DE Furia. Excuse me.
Does not that constitute each 1 of the 2 million employees the judge
of what is valid information and the judge of what is not valid in-
formation ?
Senator McCarthy. No. The law places upon them the obligation,
the right and the obligation, to give information of any felony they
have. If they don't give information about treason, they are guilty
of treason likewise. If they don't give information of felony, they are
guilty of felony.
The law gives them a right to give information, not only to chair-
men of committees, but also to Members of the Congress.
I may say the law, so far as I know, doesn't even restrict it to
wrongdoing. I restricted this more than the law of 1912, reenacted
in 1948, did. I restricted it to wrongdoing and, as chairman of the
committee, I had to get that information.
Mr. DE Furia. Can you, Senator, or your counsel, refer this commit-
tee to any act or any statute which provides that any employee can give
you information, sir ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes ; certainly.
Mr. Williams. Title V, section 652-d, United States Code.
The Chairman. Let the witness answer, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. He asked me.
Mr. DE Furia. I asked Senator McCarthy whether he or you, Mr.
Williams
The Chairmaint. Either one can answer. I am mistaken. I
thought it was confined to the witness.
Mr. DE Furia. What is that citation, sir ?
Mr. Williams. One of the citations is title V, section 652 of the
United States Code.
There is another
Mr, DE Furia. Just a minute, sir. Let me get this down — V, U. S.
Code, section 652.
Senator McCarthy. D.
Mr. Williams. D.
Mr. DE Furia. Is that the Civil Service Code, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams. It is the section of the United States Code which
deals with executive departments.
Mr. DE Furia. And may I ask, Senator McCarthy, whether there
is any other reference to statute, which you think
Senator McCarthy. Yes, there is.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 395
Mr, DE FuRiA. Entitles Government employees to give you
information
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. As distinguished from knowledge?
Senator McCarthy. Yes; there is another section. The Espionage
Act, section 798, disclosure of classified information — and this refers
specifically to the disclosure of classified information :
Nothing in tliis section shall prohibit the furnishing upon lawful demand
of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House
of Representatives of the United States of American or joint committee thereof.
Enacted October 31, 1951.
Mr. DE FuKiA. Yes, sir.
Now, you did say several times, did you not, Senator, that the in-
formation you received would be disclosed to the American people?
Senator McCarthy. Information of wrongdoing ?
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. I assume I did. I don't recall the exact state-
ment.
In open hearings, that is.
Mr. DE Fi RiA. When did you first learn. Senator, that Walter
Winchell had a copy of the two-and-a-quarter page paper?
Senator McCarthy. Oh, some newsman in the audience asked me
about it, I don't recall the date.
Mr. Welllvms, I am sorry to interrupt, but I don't think it has
ever been established by anyone that Walter Winchell had a copy of
that two-and-a-quarter page ]5aper, I don't think even Mr. Winchell
said that finally when he walked out of here.
Senator McCarthy. Yes. ^Slay I say
The Chairman. Well, I don't know that the question is entirely
proper. As counsel knows, there is a rather wide latitude in cross-
examination. They assume hypothetical positions, statements.
Senator McCarthy. I may say that I don't know that Winchell
ever had a duplicate of the document which I showed Secretary
Stevens and Mr, Jenkins. He apparently thought he had a copy of
that. Whether he did or not, I don't know.
Mr. DE Furia. Well, when did you first know that he said he had
a duplicate of it, Senator ? I think he said that he did in his news-
paj)er column.
Senator McCarthy. At some time in this committee room one of
the newsmen asked me whether or notT knew anything about Winchell
having received a copy of that document.
Mr. DE Furia. Yes, sir. From whom did 3'ou receive your 2i/4-page
paper. Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. I would not give you that information.
Mr. Williams. There has already been a ruling on that, Mr. Chair-
man, by the previous committee to whicli I can refer this.
The Chairman. Well, we can take judicial notice of what they
ruled, but we are not bound alwa^'S by what they ruled.
Senator McCarthy. I would not disclose the name of any in-
formant.
Mr. DE Furia. I am pressing my question, sir.
Unless you direct me not to persist, Mr. Chairman
Senator McCarthy. You may ])i'ess it.
52461 — 54 26
396 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
I
The Chairman. I think this whole problem is one probably that
will have to finally be decided by the Senate. I doubt that there is
any good that can come out of trying to press it here. We will not
order the witness, if that is what you mean by pressing the question,
to answer.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. That is the ruling. The committee will not require
him to answer.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Senator, did you have a conversation with a person
who gave you the 2i/4-page paper ?
Senator McCarthy. I did.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you have a conversation with him before he left
the paper in your possession ?
Senator McCarthy. Well, it was all part of the same transaction.
Certainly I talked to him before he handed me the document. He
didn't just come in and hand over a document without discussing it.
In fact, he talked to me in some detail, as I recall it. It is hard to
tell you what part of the conversation was before he handed me the
document, what part after. I could relate the conversation if you want
me to.
Mr. DE FuRiA. What I am trying to find out. Senator, is whether
you talked to him about that 2i/4-page paper on one occasion, and
whether he delivered it to you on another occasion or whether it all
happened on the same occasion.
Senator McCarthy. It was all on the same occasion.
Mr. DE FuRiA. How long had you known that person ?
Mr. Williams. Just a minute.
There is a ruling by the Chair now. Mr. de Furia is transgressing
that ruling because these questions are designed to elicit the identity
of the pei'son, and I think that is an improper question, and I will
advise the Senator not to answer that.
Senator McCarthy. I didn't intend to answer it.
Mr. DE Furia. Well, my purpose
Senator McCarthy. Mr. de Furia, I will give you no information
which might enable you to identify the informant. I will give you
any information you want about the conversation, what was said, but
I will give you no information which might enabte you or anyone else
to identify the informant.
May I say this has been my practice ever since I started this job of
trying to expose communism and treason in Government.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. I am in doubt — somewhat in doubt — about whether
that is a proper question or not; but, as I recall, the Senator has
identified, without giving the name, a group or class which the
person
Mr. Williams This question
The Chairman. Is Avorking with who gave him this document.
Am I right in that ?
Mr. Williams. This question, Mr. Chairman, goes beyond any-
thing that has heretofore been asked and would serve the purpose of
narrowing down the field of potential persons who may have given
it to him, and I think it is improper.
This position, incidently, Mr. Chairman, is not sim])ly being taken
because the Senate heretofore has sustained it, but it has been sustained
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 397
by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions, and I shall be very
happy to submit a brief on that subject to this committee, if it is neces-
sary. I hadn't anticipated it would be necessary.
The Chairman. I say I am not certain, of course, what the Senate
will consider
Mr. Williams. Yes.
The Chairman. What questions may possibly arise before the
Senate
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. When it reconvenes to consider the report of this
committee.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. jNIay we have the question read, Mr. Chairman, be-
cause I do not think, under any possibility, it could disclose any identi-
fication of the informant.
The Chairman. We will read it back.
Mr. Williams. I remember the question. It is. How long have you
known the person who gave you the document ?
Isn't that it, Mr. de Furia ?
Mr. DE Furia. Exactly.
Mr. Williams. I advise Senator McCarthy not to answer that ques-
tion under the Chair's previous ruling.
The Chairman. That is a rather close question. We will sustain
the objection to the question.
Mr. DE Furia. Had you ever received any other classified material
from this person. Senator?
Mr. Williams. I advised Senator McCarthy not to answer that
question, because this is clearly designed, Mr. Chairman, to transgress
your ruling on the subject.
Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Chairman
Mr. Williams. I think
Mr. DE Furia. I will be glad to explain the purpose I have in mind,
sir.
Mr. Williams. I will not object to any questions that Mr. de Furia
asks about the conversation that took place at the time that this docu-
ment was given. I don't think that transgresses the Chair's ruling
at all, but where he asks questions which have the effect of identify-
ing more closely the informant, that is not in keeping with the ruling
of the Chair and I must advise the witness to not answer those
questions.
The Chairman. That is still more doubtful than the other one, but
I will sustain the objection.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, sir.
Mr. DE Furia. Senator, when you presented your 2iy4-page paper
in the Army-McCarthy hearings, did you think it was a bona fide
paper?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. DE Furia. By that, do you mean, sir, that you actually thought
it was a copy of a letter, an original letter, similar, sir?
Senator McCarthy. I thought it was a copy of a document in the
Army files. On the face of the letter, it shows that certain informa-
tion had been deleted.
398 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. DE FuRiA. Well, I am confused in the words "letter'' and "docu-
ment," sir.
As I recall it, and I have part of it before me, you referred to it
several times as a letter.
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Mr. DE FuRiA. And then yon later referred to it as a document.
Now, was it a copy of a letter and did you believe it was a copy of
a letter when you presented it ?
Senator McCarthy. It appeared to be a copy of a letter and I be-
lieved it was.
All the information in that, incidentally, has been verified by J,
Edgar Hoover.
The Chairman. Just a moment.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Just answer the question.
The Chairman. Just a moment.
That is not responsive. Senator.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you know of the existence of a 15-page
The Chairman. And that remark may go out, the one you made that
it has been verified.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you know of the existence of the 15-page mem-
orandum when you presented your 21/4-page paper?
Senator McCarthy. Not at that time, no.
Mr. DE FuRiA. You did not?
Do you loiow who inserted the word "Sir" at the beginning, and
the words "Sincerely yours, J. Edgar Hoover," at the end?
Senator McCarthy. I couldn't state positively. I could give you
my thought on the matter.
Mr. DE FuRiA. I am asking for knowledge in the sense of evidence.
Do you know of your own knowledge, sir, who did that?
Senator McCarthy, Not of my own knowledge.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Do you know who made the evaluations "derogatory"
and "no derogatory" in your 214-page paper?
Senator McCarthy. I assume it was an Army security officer.
Mr. DE Furia. Do you know that of your own knowledge ?
Senator McCarthy. No, I do not know that of my own knowledge.
Mr. DE Furia. How many times since January 1953 have you re-
ceived classified material or information?
Mr. Williams. I don't think that is germane here, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, one of the very charges is that he has re-
fused
Mr. Williams. The very charge is this particular document.
The Chairman. Well, he is not talking about that.
Mr. DE Furia. Beyond this document now, Mr. Williams.
The Chairman. Of course, I would think the Senator would want to
have an answer to that
Mr. Williams. Yes.
The Chairman. Because the charge is that he has been receiving
Mr. Williams. Yes.
The Chairman. Classified information. He ought to be permitted
to explain that in his own behalf.
Mr. Williams. I was about to ask, before we got into this area, if the
Chair was thinking of taking a recess this morning.
Mr. DE Furia. I will second that motion, Mr. Chairman.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 399
The Chairman. We will take a 10-miniite recess.
Mr. Williams, Thank you, sir.
(Whereupon, at 11 : 26 a. m., an 18-miniite recess was taken.)
The Chairman. The committee will resume session.
You may go forward with your examination, Mr. de Furia.
Mr. DE F'uRiA. Mr. Chairman, this morning in my examination I re-
ferred to the name Aaron Coleman. I would like to spell the last name.
C-o-l-e-m-a-n.
The Chairman. "V'\'liat was the question?
Mr. DE Ftjeia. It was not a question. There is some misapprehen-
sion on how that is spelled and I want to make it clear that I said, I
think I said, Aaron Coleman. C-o-l-e-m-a-n.
Senator McCarthy, how many copies of your ^i/^-page paper are in
existence ?
The Chairman. That is, if he knows.
Mr. DE Furia. If you know, sir.
Senator McCarthy. As far as I know, I do not have any copy now.
I think the committee has got the only copy that we have.
Mr. DE Furia. How many copies. Senator, were made by you or un-
der 3^our instructions from the time you received your copy ?
Senator McCarthy. I thinlv there was only one. The Justice De-
partment asked for a copy and we prepared a copy for them.
Mr. DE Furia. Do you laiow whether Mr. Colin made any copies or
had any made?
Senator McCarthy. I am reasonably certain he did not.
Mr. DE Furia. Did he see it, sir ?
Senator McCarthy. He saw it, yes.
Mr. DE Furia. Did Mr. Surine have any copies made, to your knowl-
edge ?
Senator McCarthy. No, in fact I do not think Don saw it, to my
knowledge.
Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Juliana, did he see it?
Senator McCarthy. Not to my knowledge. He may have, but not
to my knowledge.
Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Anastos, did he see it, sir ?
Senator McCarthy. I am reasonably certain that Mr. Anastos did
not.
Mr. DE Furia. Mr. LaVenia? Do you know whether he saw it?
Senator McCarthy. I do not know. I do not think he saw it.
Mr. DE Furia. I mean, to your knowledge. Senator.
Senator McCarthy. No, to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. DE Furia. To the best of your knowledge, none of these men
made copies ?
Senator McCarthy. To my knowledge, none of them made copies.
Mr. DE Furia. Wliere is Mr. Anastos, and I hope I have the pronun-
ciation of his name correct. Where is he today?
Senator McCarthy. I do not know. I could check by calling my
chief of staif. He assigns the men to the various jobs.
Mr. DE Furia. He is one of your staff ; is he not ?
Senator McCarthy. He is.
Mr. DE Furia. Did you report receipt of the two and one-quarter
page paper. Senator, to the Committee on Government Operations ?
Senator McCarthy. Did I rejyort it ?
Mr. DE Furia. Yes.
400 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator McCarthy. No, there was no formal report.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Or to tlie Subcommittee on Investigations?
Senator McCarthy. No. I may have discussed it with some of the
members.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did either the Committee on Government Opera-
tions or the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations authorize you
to receive that two and one-quarter page report?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Or to retain it ?
Senator McCarthy. You mean was there a formal authorization?
Mr. DE FuRiA. Or to produce it at the Army-McCarthy hearings?
Senator McCarthy. Tliere was no formal autliorization, no.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Do you indicate by your answer that there may have
been some informal authority given to you by either the committee or
subcommittee ?
Senator McCarthy. Well, the subcommittee considered it and I
handed it to Mr. Stevens,
Mr. DE Furia. The point of my question is. Before you handed it
to Mr. Stevens, did eitlier the committee or the subcommittee in any
way authorize you to do that ?
Senator McCarthy. No, I did not take that matter up with the
committee.
Mr. DE Furia. Did any of the members of the Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations or the subcommittee know that you had that two-
and-one-quarter-page paper ?
Senator McCarthy. I do not knoAv. It was available to them.
Mr. DE Furia. Was it in your exclusive possession, Senatoi-, from
the time it was given to you until the time you produced it at the
Army-McCarthy hearings ?
Senator McCarthy. I think that Mr. Cohn saw it. Mr. Carr did.
Whether Mr. Kennedy, the minority^ counsel, saw it, I do not know.
Mr. DE Furia. Did you show it to any member of your committee?
Senator McCarthy. Personally, no.
Mr. DE Furia. Did you tell any member of your committee that
you had it ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. de Furia, I do not know whether I dis-
cussed this particular document. I mentioned to the committee that
we had evidence of subversion, communism, infiltration in the secret
radar laboratories. Whether this particular document was mentioned
or not, I could not tell you.
Mr. DE Furia. After you received it. Senator, did you offer to re-
turn it to General Boiling?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. DE Furia. Did you offer to return it to the Army ?
Senator McCarthy. No, except when I handed it to Mr. Stevens.
Mr. DE Furia. Or to J. Edgar Hoover?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. DE Furia. Or to any judge ?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. DE Furia. Or to anv of the civil or militaiy autliorities?
Senator McCarthy. Well, of course, I am a civil authority.
Mr. DE Furia. Other than yourself, did you offer to return it or give
it to any civil or military authority ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 401
Senator ]VIcCartht. ISTo, as chairman of the investigating commit-
tee, I had this information. I retained it.
Mr. DE FuRiA. I do not remember whether you. answered this ques-
tion or not, but I asked you this : Since January 3, 1953, have you re-
ceived other cLassified material, not inchiding this two-and-one-quar-
ter-page paper ?
Senator McCarthy. You say other classified material ?
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes.
Senator McCarthy. First, let us make it clear that as far as I know
this document is not classified.
If you will say, did I receive any classified material, I will answer
that question.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Classified material, classified under the signed order
of the President or of the Secretary of the Army or the FBI and other
executive authorities who have the right to make classification ; have
you received any such material since January 1953 ?
Senator McCarthy. To the best of my knowledge, no, except
through official requests to various departments from whom we re-
ceived classified material, on official request.
Mr. DE FuRiA. When you say "no," do you mean you have not re-
ceived classified material which is properly classified, in your opin-
ion, or do you mean that you. have not received classified material
classified by executive authority ?
Senator McCarthy. I do not think that I received anything that
was stamped as classified, except through official requests.
Mr. DE Furia. When you invited the Government employees and
other informants to bring classified material to you, dicl you know
that you were asking them to violate their oaths of office ?
Mr. Williams. Wait a minute. I am sorry, Mr. de Furia.
Senator McCarthy. He has misstated it.
The Chairman. Just a moment. Which one of you wants to speak?
Mr. Williams. I was simply going to point out for the record that
Mr. de Furia has misstated the solicitation or request. Tlie request,
solicitation, as it has been shown from the documents already intro-
duced, was for evidence of wrongdoing, treason, communism, cor-
ruption, and graft.
Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Chairman, I pointed out that Senator McCarthy
always used the word information. I take it there is a difference
between evidence which would be acceptable in a court and
information ?
Senator McCarthy. If yoli will rephrase your question, Mr. de
Furia
The Chairman. It seems to me it is proper cross-examination. The
witness can answer whether it is right or not.
Mr. Williams. He started out when you asked for this classified
information. There is nothing in the documents he has introduced to
show that Senator McCarthy made any specific request for classified
information. He asked for information on wrongdoing in the execu-
tive department which he delineated as graft, corruption, communism,
or treason.
Mr. DE Furia. Eegardless of any Executive order, regardless of any
order of the President, regardles of any stamp that may have been
put on by some little bureaucrat. That is what the Senator said;
is that not right ?
402 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. Are you asking this question now ?
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes.
Mr, Williams. Is that what he said ?
Mr. DE FuRiA. I am asking whether he did not say that regardless of
the order of the President
Mr. Williams. Are you undertaking to quote him, Mr. de Furia?
Mr. DE Furia. May I proceed, Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. I think that is proper.
Mr. Williams. I am going to interrupt him so long as you let me,
Mr. Chairman, when he misstates the facts. I said yesterday I wanted
to help him to be fair and I conceive that to be my function. He put
in the word quoted and I asked him where he was quoting from, and
I do not see why there should be any reluctance on his part.
Mr. DE Furia. There is no reluctance. I will be glad to give it
to you verbatim, sir. Just give me a moment.
I call to your attention, Senator, the record in the Army-McCarthy
hearings, volume 23, May 28, 1954, page 4260, already in the record
of this hearing, wherein you stated
Mr. Williams. What was the page ?
Mr. DE Furia. 4260.
Mr. Williams. Is that in this mimeographed sheet ?
Mr. DE Furia. Yes.
Mr, Williams. O. K.
Mr. DE Furia. Wlierein you stated :
I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I have instructed a vast number of those em-
ployees that they were duty-bound to Rive me information, even if some little
bureaucrat has stamped it "secret" to protect himself.
Is that correct ?
Senator McCarthy. I think that is a correct quote.
Mr. Williams. In the context, of course.
Mr. DE Furia. Just a minute, please. May I proceed?
The Chairman. Let him proceed with the cross-examination. If
there is any objection to the question, the Chair will rule on it.
Mr. Williams. I object. I think the context should be pointed out.
The Chairman. You may do that on redirect, sir.
Mr. Williams. I do not like to leave these misleading bases for
inferences that might be drawn by his omitting parts of the colloquy.
The Chairman. Bring that up in cross-examination, if anything
is called for that does not give a complete picture. Then, on the re-
direct examination, counsel, or the person being interrogated in this
case. Senator McCarthy, can have an opportunity on redirect to bring
out those things.
Mr. Williams. I merely wanted to be sure that Mr. de Furia wanted
the complete picture.
The Chairman. We want the complete picture, but he cannot get
everything in his questions; I realize that. That is one of the diffi-
culties in conducting an examination. Particularly is it difficult un-
der the directions of this committee to Mr. de Furia.
Mr. de Furia and Mr. Chadwick have both been practicing the law,
where they have to take necessary adversary positions all the time.
This committee has instructed them, as nearly as humanly possible,
to step from that role, and to assume a different role of trying to get
all the facts, regardless of whether the facts may help any particu-
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 403
lar view or not, and whether favorable or unfavorable to Senator
McCarthy ; to develop all the facts. And I think we can understand
it would be a handicap to limit him, because, by force of habit, for
many, many years, they have taken the adversary point of view ; and
so sometimes they may get over the line a little bit; and I will try
to call it to their attention.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, will you permit me a word?
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Chadwick. Just to say this : At a previous stage of the hear-
ings, Mr. Williams challenged us as to the fairness of our selection
of sections from the diverse and confused testimony, for the purpose
of introducing matters material to this case. Thereafter, he checked
us with the greatest care on the question, and, if I recall rightly, he
found that we had excluded no context which was of pertinency or
relevancy, although he did introduce matters in which he quoted other
testimony, as we had conceded that it would be his right to do.
Mr. Williams. I will subscribe to that, Mr. Chairman. I cannot
hear all the statement, but I think I subscribe to it.
The Chairman. I think, at the moment, it is unnecessary for us
to have this colloquy, but we let Mr. Chadwick made his statement.
Senator McCarthy. May I have the answer to Mr. de Furia's
question ?
The Chairman. Read the question, also, so we will know what he
was answeriijg.
(The record was read by the reporter, as follows:)
I call to your attention, Senator, the record in the Army-McCarthy hearings,
volume 23, May 28, 1954, page 4260, already in the record of this hearing, wherein
you stated
Mr. Williams. What was the page?
Mr. DE FURiA. 4260.
Mr. Williams. Is that in this mimeographed sheet?
Mr. DE FuKiA. Yes.
Mr. Williams. O.K.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Wherein you stated :
'•I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I have instructed a vast number of those
employees that they were duty-bound to give me information, even if some little
bureaucrat has stamped it 'secret' to protect himself."
Is that correct?
Senator McCarthy. I think that is a correct quote.
Senator McCarthy. May I add to that answer, Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. You may, as long as it is responsive.
Senator McCarthy. It is quoted, sir, to show something is omitted,
and I am sure Mr. de Furia knows that, taken in the context of the
examination, I was referring to graft and corruption, communism, and
treason. I was not asking for any other information.
INIr. DE Furia. I think that is correct, sir. But you were asking for
information on those subjects, regardless of any stamping of classi-
fication under the law ; is that right, sir ?
Senator McCarthy. As long as it was not actually classified mate-
rial ; and, Mr. de Furia
Mr. DE Furia. I do not understand, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. de Furia, may I suggest that, at this point,
so we will know what we are referring to, when we talk about "classi-
fied"— I am not going to tell you how to conduct your cross-
examination
■404 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. DE FuRiA. Any help will be appreciated, Senator; don't worry.
Senator McCarthy. That we put into the record the definition of
"Top Secret," "Secret," "G-," "Confidentiar — I have that here— so
We will know what we are referring to, and none of these definitions
includes information about graft, corruption, communism, or treason.
Mr. DE Fltbia. But the point of my question, Senator, is this :
You say you "instructed." Now, that is more than an invitation:
isn't it?
Senator McCarthy. Well, I should have said "invited", because I
€ould not instruct. I had no authority to instruct.
Mr. DE FuRiA. But the record does show that you said "instructed",
does it not? xA.nd that was over the air, and was heard over a nation-
wide television system ; isn't that right, sir ?
Senator McCarthy. The record shows "instructed", but I say it
should be "invited", because, obviously, I could not instruct. I had
no power over the Federal employees.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you not say, sir, that it was their duty, however,
to bring you this information ?
Senator McCarthy. I said that ; and I think so, now. I think that
it is their absolute dutv to bring to the Congress anv information
«oncernnig graft, corruption, communism, and treason.
If they do not do that, in my opinion, they are violating the law ;
they should not be working for the Federal Government.
It is inconceivable to anyone that Mr. de Furia would say that a
man guilty of w^rongdoing can stamp the evidence of his wrongdoing
^'Secret", or "Top Secret", when it does not conform to the definitions
which I just handed to the Chair.
We just cannot have that in this country.
Mr. DE FuRiA. You did not talk about his wrongdoing, did you,
Senator? You talked about nobody's wrongdoing?
Senator McCarthy. We are interested in anybody's wrongdoing,
Mr. Chairman. That is my duty, I was unanimously selected as
head of a committee to act as the watchdog of the executive branch,
to ferret out wrongdoing. The only Avay I can get that is by inviting
those who know about it to bring me the information.
Mr. DE Furia. Did the Senate of the United States instruct you
that you had the power to obtain information of wrongdoing, regard-
less of orders of the President or executive officials, and regardless of
proper markings of classified material?
Senator McCarthy. Not regardless of proper marking. We are
not looking for atomic energy secrets, we are not looking for the type
of material defined in the instructions of "secret," "top secret," and
"confidential," which is in the hands of the Chair. We are looking
for evidences of wrongdoing.
Under the Reorganization Act, the committee of which I am chair-
man is charged with the responsibility of ferreting out that wrong-
doing. As chairman of the subcommittee I have that duty, and I can-
not perform that duty unless those who know of the wrongdoing
bring the information to me.
Mr. DE Furia. As I understand it, you feel that, in the proper per-
formance of your duties, you should have given this public instruction
or invitation, soliciting the information, even though the persons who
would supply you with this information would be violating the orders
of the President of the United States and their own superiors?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 405
Senator McCarthy. I do not think the President of the United
States has ever issued an order saying he Avanted to cover up wrong-
doing.
Mr. DE FuRiA. That is not the question, Senator, and I wish you
would answer.
Senator McCarthy. If I may answer, I do not think that you can
say that the President has ever issued an order saying you must
•cover up evidence of graft, corruption, treason, and communism. He
has issued an order saying that, if it falls within the category which
I have handed to the Chair, that, then, it will be classified; and we
ihave never asked for any of that type of material, nor do I intend
to ask for that type of material.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Didn't you say. Senator — and I am referring now
Senator McCarthy. May I ask, Mr. de Furia, if I could have my
staff hand each member of the committee a definition
The Chairman. This matter, I was going to say. Senator, going on
with the examination, I just wanted to check it. I haven't had an
opportunity to read it because I have to follow the proceedings.
We want some of these definitions in the record at the proper place;
we will see that they are in.
But I have not gone through this to see that it meets the standard
«et up by the committee.
Proceed with the examination.
Senator McCarthy, Mr, de Furia, may I add to that answer?
Mr. DE Furia. I am afraid I have forgotten where we were, sir.
Senator McCarthy. I remember where we were,
Mr. Williams, I think the content of the question w\as whether or
not he was seeking evidence on wrongdoing, graft, corruption, com-
munism, and treason, if the giving of that information would be in
violation of a Presidential directive,
Mr. DE Furia. That is correct, sir.
Has that been answered, Mr. Williams ?
Senator McCarthy. Not fully. I intended to answer it fully in
my own fashion, if the Chair will allow me to.
I will call the Chair's attention to a report by the Subcommittee
to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and
other Internal Security Laws, report signed by Herbert O'Conor, Pat
McCarran, William Jenner.
This is an official report of the Senate.
The Chairman. Just a minute. Let us get this question back.
Will you re])eat that question again that was askecl ? Whether this
is responsive, is the point in mind.
Mr. DE Furia. The question, sir, is whether Senator McCarthy in-
vited or instructed the Government employees to bring him informa-
tion regardless of any classification and regardless of any order of
the President or the executive department: the Army, FBI, and so
forth.
The Chairman. This does not seem to be responsive to the question.
Senator McCarthy. The answer to that is no, because I feel the
President has never ordered that information on wrongdoing, graft,
corruption, and treason, be classified.
Mr. DE Furia. Does that mean. Senator, that you were interpreting
the President's orders contrary to what the Attorney General of the
406 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
United States has interpreted them in official conimnnications and
opinions ? Is that what yon mean, sir ?
Senator McCarthy. I wonldn't compare my interpretation with
the Attorney General; all I say is that I don't think our President
feels that you should classify information of graft, corruption, com-
munism, treason.
I don't think there is any such order.
The Chairman. What I think we are trying to get at, and what the
committee is interested in knowing is, whether you asked for informa-
tion which, under the regulations the President had set up and ap-
proved, if they had to give it, whether they should give that kind of
information where apparently some instruction got out and some
authority has been given to executive department officials to mark
certain documents and information classified.
Senator McCarthy. They have only got authorization to mark
them classified if they come within the categories which I have handed
to you, Mr. Chairman. We have not asked for that information.
The Chairman. Of course, I think that we will all agree that the
President of the United States would not want to protect, nor issue
an order to protect, wrongdoers.
Senator McCarthy. Eight.
The Chairman. For withholding information that might expose
wrongdoers. We are getting now down to the question of the orders
that have been issued and what you were attempting to get. You
take one particular line, apparently the argument on the other side,
and the other line is that when it is classified, or at least it has been
marked classified, then these people should respect that classification
and should not reveal it. That would be, of course, one of the ques-
tions the Senate will have to decide.
We have had controversy over that same thing for many years,
whether we can get that information and the Senate in the majority
has taken the view that we should have as much as we can get properly.
It has never been decided legally as far as I know in any court as to
just where that dividing line is, how much we may get, and how much
the President may not give us, or can refuse to give us. We have
talked a lot about it but we have actually never done anything in get-
ting a decision.
So, it seems to me we are arguing back and forth on that general
principle, when I think counsel was trying to find out with respect to
the actual instruments that had been marked classified. Is that what
you had in mind?
Mr. DE Furia. Yes, sir, that's correct, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Somebody illegally marks something classi-
fied
Mr. DE Furia. Do you take it upon yourself to decide that it is
illegally marked classified,, or if J. Edgar Hoover marks it classified,
doesn't that make it classified ?
Senator McCarthy. Let's not drag J. Edgar Hoover into this.
The Chairman. That is a proper question.
Senator McCarthy. I have had no documents marked classified by
J. Edgar Hoover.
Mr. DE Furia. The two and a fourth page document classified by
the FBI was top secret.
Senator McCarthy. No, it was not.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 407
The Chairman. That is a matter of argument. I think the question
here is what was said about it, and what Mr. Brownell reported about
it, and the witness, Mr. Collier, the staff member who went to talk to
Mr. Hoover — that is all part of the record now so it is only a matter
of argument.
Senator McCarthy. I w^ould like to have it straight that the 15-
page document of security information was marked by Hoover. That
was never received by us. The two and a half page document with
the securit}' information deleted was never classified by J. Edgar
Hoover. In fact, apparently — strike that.
Mr. DE FuRiA. The chairman of this committee has ruled that that
contained material that cannot be divulged and all six of the Senators
on this committee have confirmed that opinion. In spite of that, is it
your position that you have the right to decide in your own case
whether it is confidential, is top secret, or classified, or secret, and
whatever you decide shall be binding so far as what you receive and
what you publish ? Is that your opinion ?
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I understood
The Chairman. Make your objection.
Mr. Williams. I understood that that document which was offered
yesterday and which was offered for the view of the members of the
conmiittee, was being preserved in the record and that it would be
ultimately, as I thought the Chair said, for the full Senate to pass
upon that })articular legal questio]i.
Now, when the document was offered here, it was not offered, as I
understood it, with the names to be considered for the reasons that
have been stated heretofore this morning. But I don't think there is
any evidence anywhere that that particular document has been classi-
fied by Mr. Hoover. I am perfectly sure that if it had been, he would
have been around and picked it up weeks ago.
The Chairman. The information, as I understood from the testi-
mony of Mr. Collier, I think it was, who was sent down by the com-
mittee to get the information — I am speaking of the Mundt commit-
tee— his testimony was that he regarded the information in it as classi-
fied ; and then it was put up to Mr. Brownell to say whether or not it
could be declassified ; that Mr. Hoover said he couldn't declassify that
information.
So we may be talking about some technicalities, but I think the
overall statement meant — at least,- that is my own opinion — that the
information in it, and for that reason it was classified and for that
reason the document itself ought to be classified — and the committee,
to make it clear, we looking this over, we received it and decided to
receive it in evidence, and you can't just take out part of it and say
we will only take this much in evidence.
We could not do that. But it was our opinion on the face of it, and
reading it, that the document had something to do with the security
of the United States and for that reason we felt it was a securiy docu-
ment and should remain classified.
And we received it, let me make it clear, very much after the prece-
dent set up by committees which had to pass upon confirmations of
appointees by the President. Certain officers had to be confirmed by
the Senate and when these appointments were sent to the Senate, the
Vice President referred them immediatelv to various committees.
408 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
NoAV, Ave have been receiving in the past for the use onl}' of the
chairman of tlie committee the confidential information or the classi-
fied information from tlie FBI. Only chairmen of committees may
see that. It has been a matter of controversy for many years. Many
Senators claim they have the right to receive it as well but we re-
ceived it following that precedent, that this committee would receive
it and would not, unless it is declassified sometime, as indicated by
proper autlioritv in the executive departments, that it has informa-
tion that will do no damage, can possibly do no damage, we would
receive it as much as we received information that the chairman re-
ceives on appointment. That is as far as we have gone.
"We decided tliat that far, at least, that it appeared to us to be classi-
fied and security information, the release of which might possibly
endanger the security of the United States.
Senator McCarthy. Counsel asked me the question of whether or
not I would disregard tlie ruling of the Chair in this case. The an-
swer is "No," I don't intend to make this document public. I think
it does involve the security in tliis respect. It shows that the se-
curity of the Nation was in grave dangei" when Communists were
handling our top-secret radar matters. As cliairman of the committee^
I had to investigate that.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that my last question
has not been answered yet and have it read by the reporter.
The CiiAiRMAisr. You may.
(The reporter read the question referred to as follows :)
The Chairman of this committee ha.s ruled that that contained material that
cannot be divulged and all six of the Senators on this committee have confirmed
that opinion. In spite of that, is it your position that you have the right to
decide in your own case whether it is confidential, top secret, or classified, or
secret, and whatever you decide shall be binding so far as what you receive
and what you shall publi.sh ? Is that your opinion ?
Mr. DE FuRiA. Is that your opinion ?
The Chairman. You may answer the question.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I thought I had answered, but
I will answer again if he wants me to.
This document contains evidence of the harboring of Communists.
The Chairman. The question was : Is that your opinion ?
Senator McCarthy. Let me answer it in my own fashion, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. As long as you respond.
Senator McCarthy. I will try and respond.
This document contains evidence of the harboring of Communists
in one of the top-secret radar laboratories. It was a 2%-year-old
document. The Communists were still there. Tliey would still be
there if I didn't
The Chairman. Just a moment. That is not responsive.
Senator McCarthy. I felt I had to act upon it.
The Chairman. Senator
Senator INIcCarthy. I felt I had to use the document.
The Chairman. Just a moment. We want to get along here. T
don't think that is responsive. I want to be as courteous as I may, and
I think you will have to abide by the rulings, I don't think that is
responsive.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 409'
He asked if that was your opinion and that ordinarily would call
for a yes or no answer, although I am not callino; for it.
Senator McCarthy. I can't answer that, yes or no. This is a docu-
ment, information which I had to use. I would have been derelict
in my duty if I hadn't used the information in my investigation, Mr.
Chaii-man — I should have been censured.
The Chairman. That doesn't have anything to do with whether-
that was your opinion or not.
Senator McCarthy. That was my opinion.
The Chairman. If that is the best answer, proceed with the next
question.
Mr. DE FuRiA. When you received that 2i/4-page paper, Senator^
you knew, did you not, that it was marked "confidential?"
Senator McCarthy. It was a typewritten word ''confidential" on it.,
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you not know then, Senator, that was the
highest classification for FBI material?
Senator McCarthy. This was not
Mr. DE FuRiA. That is not the question, sir.
Senator McCarthy. I don't know what the highest classification
of the FBI material is. I think it is "top secret."
Mr. DE FuRiA. Now. But at that time it was "confidential"?
Senator McCarthy. I think it is "top secret."
Mr. DE FuRiA. Now or then, sir?
Senator McCarthy. I believe the definition of top secret has been
in existence for some time. I don't know. You would have to check
that.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Wasn't it the testimony at the Army-McCarthy hear-
ings at which you participated that the classification of that letter as
indicated by the words "personal and confidential, via liaison," was
the top classification of the FBI?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, but this was not an FBI document, so
we are talking about the Army document, and the top classification
there is "secret."
Mr. DE FuRiA. I am asking you when you picked up that paper
and you looked at it, and you saw that it said at the top "personal and
confidential," and "via liaison," that it purported to be a copy of a letter
from J. Edgar Hoover, and didn't you know that that purported to
be classified document from the FBI?
Senator McCarthy. It would appear to have been classified.
Mr. DE FuRTA. Kegardless of that appearance, you took it, you
retained it ; you endeavored to make it public ; isn't that right?
Senator McCarthy, That's correct.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Now, that is the
Senator McCarthy. I still think it should be made public.
Mr. DE FuRiA. I understand, sir, but you assume that even if that
were a bona fide document, you had the right to do with it what you
did ; is that correct?
Senator McCarthy. IMr. de Furia, I told you 10 times I have not
only the right, but the duty to investigate wrongdoing, to investigate
treason; this showed wrongdoing, it showed Communist infiltration.
It indicated treason at the top radar laboratory. I had to use that
information as the chairman of the investigating committee.
Mr. DE FiRiA. Then your answer is-
Senaor McCarthy. Let's not be puny about it.
410 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
f Mr". DE FuRiA. We are not being puny, and some of ns are just as
devoted to your sincere causes as others. I wish I could assure you
of that. All I am askino- you is that regardless of the classification
appearing on the face of that letter, you clecided that you did not have
to abide by it, is that correct ?
Senator McCarthy. After talking to the officer, and discovering
that there was wrongdoing, as evidenced by this document, I felt
that I had the absolute right and duty to use the information contained
in the document. I did that. I would do it again.
Mr. DE FuKiA. That is my point, sir, that you think you have the
right to determine when and how you can use classified information.
The Chairman. I think the question has been sufficiently answered.
Proceed with further examination.
Mr. DE Ftjrl\. All right, sir.
Now, do you think it would be proper for all of the other Members
of the Senate to do the same thing that you think you have the right
to do. Senator 'i
Senator McCarthy. The chairman of the investigation commit-
tee lias^
The Chairman. I would think that that is probably an improper
question.
Mr. DE FuRiA. I don't think so, Mr. Chairman. I am going to try
to develop whether Senator McCarthy thinks he has these rights as
an individual Senator or chairman of some particular committee, sir.
The Chairman. You are going quite far afield, I believe.
Mr. DE FtxRiA. I Avill abide by the ruling of the Chair, sir.
The Chairman. Well, I rule that is not proper.
Mr. Williams. I don't object to the question, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I rule it is improper.
We are interested in Senator McCarthy's opinions as to his own con-
duct ; we are not interested in what he thinks the other Senators have
a right to do.
Mr. Williams. The only thing was, Mr. Chairman, Mr. de Furia
was suggesting, by his examination, that Senator McCarthy thought
himself in a different category, for no reason, than other Senators,
and I think it is appropriate to show he does not.
The Chairman. I realize I am taking quite a responsibility in rul-
ing against the opinion of both you lawyers; but, at the same time,
I want to keep this investigation on the main objective, and that is to
investigate the charges against Senator McCarthy. I can't see at the
moment that is going to throw any particular light on them.
Mr. DE Furia. Senator, do you intend that the employees of the ex-
ecutive department shall have the right to bring you classified material,
even though a crime is committed by the informant in abstracting the
information and delivering it to you ?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. DE Furia. Do you consider, Senator, in the performance of your
committee asignments, that you are a law-enforcement officer?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. DE Furia. Senator, you have referred, as the basis, in part at
least, of your position, to the LaFoUette Act ; is that correct ?
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Mr. DE Furia. Now, have you read the entire act which is found in
5 United States Code, section 652 ?
I
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 411
Senator McCarthy. I think I have. I read all the pertinent parts
of it.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Chairman, because of the importance of this, I
would like to have the entire act, sir, entered in the record at this
point since it has not been presented yet.
Mr. Williams. I presented it long ago, Mr. de Furia.
Mr. DE Furia. I think you did by reference, Mr. Williams, but I
think all of the sections should be in so that the members of the com-
mittee, and later the Members of of the Senate, may be able to inter-
pret and understand the act by not reading just the last section, but
all the sections in the act.
The Chairman. May I see that ?
It doesn't seem to be a very lengthy act but it may be convenient to
have it in the record. So, we will order it printed at this point.
Sec. 652. Removal without pay from, classified civil service — (a) Only for cause:
Notice: Copy of charges: Time to Answer: Examirvation, record: Persons
exempt
No person in the classified civil service of the United States shall be re-
moved or suspended vpithout pay therefrom except for such cause as will pro-
mote the efficiency of such service and for reasons given in writing. Any person
whose removal or suspension without pay is sought shall (1) have notice of
the same and of any charges preferred against him; (2) be furnished with a
copy of such charges; (3) be allowed a reasonable time for filing a written
answer to such charges, with affidavits; and (4) be furnished at the earliest
practicable date with a written decision on such answer. No examination of
witnesses nor any trial or hearing shall be required except in the discretion
of the officer or employee directing the removal or suspension without pay.
Copies of the charges, the notice of hearing, the answer, the reasons for re-
moval or suspension without pay, and the order of removal or susi>ension with-
out pay shall be made a part of the records of the proper department or agency,
as shall also the reasons for reduction in grade or compensation; and copies
of the same shall be furnished, upon request, to the person affected and to the
Civil Service Commission. This subsection shall apply to a person within
the purview of section 683 of this title, only if he so elects.
(ft) Reitistatement or restoration to duty: Compensation: Deductions: vet-
erans: Removal by reduction in force
(1) Any person removed or suspended without pay under subsection (a)
who, after filing a written answer to the charges as provided under such sub-
section or after any further appeal to proper authority after receipt of an
adverse decision on the answer, is reinstated or restored to duty on the ground
that such removal or suspension was unjustified or vmwan-anted, shall be paid
compensation at the rate received on the date of such removal or suspension,
for the period for which he received no compensation with respect to the posi-
tion from which he was removed or suspended, less any amounts earned by
him through other employment during such period, and shall for all purposes
except the accumulation of leave be deemed to have rendered service during
such period. A decision with respect to any appeal to proper authority under
this paragraph shall be made at the earliest practicable date.
(2) Any person who is discharged, suspended, or furloughed without pay.
under section 863 of this title, who, after answering the reasons advanced for
such discharge, suspension, or furlough or after an appeal to the Civil Service
Commission, as provided under such section, is reinstated or restored to duty
on the ground that such discharge, suspension, or furlough for the period was
unjustified or unwarranted, shall be paid compensation at the rate received
on the date of such discharge, suspension, or furlough for the period for which
he received no compensation with respect to the position from which he was
discharged, suspended, or furloughed, less any amounts earned by him through
other employment during such period, and shall for all purposes except the
accumulation of leave be deemed to have rendered service during such period.
(3) Any person removed or suspended without pay in a reduction in force
who, after an appeal to proper authority, is reinstated or restored to duty on
the ground that such removal or suspension was unjustified or unwarranted
52461—54 27
412 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
shall be paid compensation at tlie rate received on the date of such removal or
suspension, for the period for which he received no compensation with respect
to the position from which he was removed or suspended, less any amounts
earned by him throush. other employment during such period, and shall for all
purposes except the accumuhition of leave be deemed to have rendered service
during such period. A decision with respect to any appeal to proper authority
under this paragraph shall be made at the earliest practicable date.
(c) Membership in associations, clubs, etc., no cause for reduction in rank or
compensation or removal
Membership in any society, association, club, or other form of organization
of postal employees not affiliated with any outside organization imposing an
obligation or duty upon them to engage in any strike, or proposing to assist
them in any strike, against the United States, having for its objects, among
other things, improvements in the condition of labor of its members, including
hours of labor and compensation therefor and leave of absence, by any person
or groups of persons in said postal service, or the presenting by any such
person or groups of persons of any grievance or grievances to the Congress or
any Member thereof shall not constitute or be cause for reduction in rank or
compensation or removal of such person or groups of persons from said service.
(d) Right to petition Congress
The right of persons employed in the civil service of the United States, either
individually or collectively, to petition Congress, or any Member thereof, or to
furnish information to eitlier House of Congress, or to any committee or mem-
ber thereof, shall not be denied or interfered with. (As amended June 10, 1948,
ch. 447, 62 Stat. 354 ; 1949 Reorganization Plan No. 5, effective August 19, 1949,
14 F. R. 5227, 63 Stat. 1067.)
The Chairman. While I am at it, on these documents, we will also
have printed in the record at this point the memo submitted by Senator
McCarthy, which purports to be taken from Administrative Instruc-
tion No. 8, Kevised, Office of the Secretary of Defense, July 1954.
[Taken from Administrative Instruction No. 8 (Revii5ed), Office of the Secretary of
Defense Security Instructions;, July 1954]
J/. Classification Categories
Official information originating in the Office of the Secretary of Defense which
requires protection in the interests of nati(mal defense shall be limited to tliree
categories of classification, wliicli in descending order of importance shall carrv
one of the following designations : TOP SF:CRET. SECRET, or CONFIDEN-
TIAL. No other designation shall be used to classify defense information, in-
cluding military information, as reciulring protection in tlie interests of national
defense, except as expressly provided by statute.
(a) Top Secret.— The use of the classification TOP SECRET shall be limited
to defense information or material which requires the highest degree of protec-
tion. The TOP SECRET classification shall be applied only to that information
or material tlie defense asi>ect of which is jjaramount, and the unauthorized dis-
closure of which could result in exceptionally grave damage to the Nation such
as —
(1) Leading to a definite break in diplomatic relations affecting the de-
fense of the United States, an armed attack against the United States or its
allies, a war ; or
(2) The compromise of military or defense plans, or intelligen<'e opera-
tions, or scientific or technological developments vital to tlie national defense.
(b) t^ecret. — The use of the classification S1-:CRET shall be limited to defense
information or material the unauthorized disclosure of which could result in
serious damage to the Nation, such as —
(1) Jeojiardizing the international relations of the United Stiites.
(2) Endangering the effectiveness of a program or policy of vital impor-
tance to tlie national defense.
(3) Compromising important military or defense plans, scientific or tech-
nological developments important to national defense.
(4) Revealing important intelligence operations.
(c) Confidential.— The use of the classification CONFIDENTIAL shall be
limited to defense information or material the unauthorized disclosure of which
could be prejudicial to the defense interests of the Nation, such as —
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 413
(1) Personal security investigations and other investigations which re-
quire protection against unautliorized disclosure.
(2) Operational and battle reports which contain information of value to
the enemy.
(3) Intelligence reports.
(4) Military radio frequency and call sign allocations of special signifi-
cance or tho.^^e which are changed frequently for security reasons.
(5) Devices and material relating to communications security.
(6) Information which indicates strength of our troops, air and naval
forces in the United States and overseas areas, identity or composition of
units, or quantity of specific items of equpiment pertaining thereto.
(7) Documents and manuals containing technical information used for
training, maintenance, and inspection of classified munitions of war.
(8) Operational and tactical doctrine.
(9) Research, development, production, and procurement of munitions of
war.
(10) Mobilization plans.
(11) Matters and documents of a personal and disciplinary nature, the
disclosure of which could be pre.iudicial to discipline and morale of the
Armed Forces.
(12) Documents used in connection with procurement, selection and pro-
motion of military personnel, the disclosure of which could violate the in-
tegrity of the competitive system.
Official information of the type defined in these two subparagraphs will be
classified as "Confidential" only if in fact the unauthorized disclosure of such
information could be prejudicial to the defense interests of the Nation. If
such information is not strictly defense information but nevertheless requires
protection, it will be safeguarded by means provided for in other appropriate
instructions.
The CnAiR^iAN. Both of those will be for the convenience and in-
formation of the committee and the Senate.
Mr. CiiADWicK. Mr. Chairman, will yon indnlge us for 5 minutes,
or a minute, if "we can so quickly dispose of it ?
The Chairman. We will suspend
Senator Case. JNIr. Chairman, I have one question I would like to
ask.
The Chairman. Senator Case.
Senator Case. Senator McCarthy, who makes the determination of
classification — the receiver or the sender or a letter?
Senator McCarthy. I think that would vary. When I was in the
Marine Corps, sometimes we would upgrade or downgrade things of
that type.
Senator Case. Who has the right to downgrade it ?
Senator McCarthy. The proper officer, and that is set out in the
law, and I couldn't quote that law.
Senator Case. The reason I asked the question is because, in answer
to some question by Mr. de Furia, a little while ago, you said that you
regarded the tAvo-and-a-quarter page document as an Army docu-
ment rather than an FBI document.
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Senator Case. Now, my recollection was that that document pur-
ported to be a letter prepared by the FBI in carrying at least the
typewritten signature of J. Edgar Hoover.
Senator McCarthy. But with material deleted by the Army, which
would make it an Army document. Once they take and and delete
material, and that appears obviously on the face of the letter, that
tliey deleted — take paragraph 5 — it shows the entire paragraph is
deleted — it appears that the analysis of the security information was
made by someone in the Army, certainly not by the FBI, because, as
we know, they don't make the analysis.
414 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator Case. Ordinarily, is not the privilege of a letter the privi-
lege of the writer of the letter ?
kSeiiator McCarthy. I, frankly, don't know what the rules and
regulations are. I assume if a top-secret document were written and
not classified by the sender, the receiver would be duty bound to
stamp it "Top Secret."
Likew^ise, if the receiver deleted
Senator Casj]. Was the
Senator McCarthy. Likewise, if the receiver deleted the security
information
Senator Case. Was the
Senator McCarthy. He would be entitled to give it a different
classification.
Senator Case. Was the inscription on the document — "Personal and
Confidential" — a part of the carbon reproduction of the letter and
apparently in the same typewriter type as the body of the letter and
the signature on the letter ?
Senator McCarthy. I would have to see the letter to confirm that,
but my best recollection is that those words were on the document.
Senator Case. And it was part of the carbon reproduction ?
Senator McCarthy. By "a part of the carbon reproduction," do
you mean was it
Senator Case. The classification marked on the letter ?
Senator McCarthy. The same type of type as the rest of the letter,
I think, yes.
Senator Case. And it was part of the carbon reproduction?
Senator McCarthy. I don't know what you mean by that. It was
in the same type as the rest of it.
Senator Case. But it was not original typing ; it appeared in carbon ?
Senator McCarthy. That's right.
Senator Case. I do not understand how you would say, then, that
that is an Army document, if it purported to be a letter from J. Edgar
Hoover, and it seems to me the classification would rest with the
sender of the letter.
Senator McCarthy. Senator Case, when Hoover sends a document
to the Army and they take out the pertinent parts, delete the security
information, from then on, while it is a letter from J. Edgar Hoover,
it is an Army document; and if there is no security information, they
can classify it as they see fit.
Senator Case. Now, of course, I recognize that it is not clearly in
evidence that the document which Walter Winchell testified he ex-
hibited to Mr. Hoover is clearly a copy of the document which you had.
I recognize that to be true.
However, the general supposition is that it was; but, in any event,
Mr. Hoover said, of the document that Winchell had, that he would
arrest him if he printed that.
Senator McCarthy. No. No, he didn't say that.
Mr. Wn^iAMs. He hadn't seen it. Senator.
Senator McCarthy. He said
Senator Case. No. Mr. Hoover
Senator McCarthy. He said that if he printed the document that
Brownell said was classified, the two-and-a-half-page document, he
would have to arrest him. He didn't say anything about the docu-
ment Winchell had, as the testimony will show.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 415
Senator Case. I don't pretend that there was any identification be-
tween the two documents. I don't think that has been established, but
I do recall that in the report of the Mundt committee there is a para-
graph which says that Mr. Cotter, apparently an employee of the com-
mittee, contacted Mr. Hoover and asked him about the document
which you presented to the committee and that Mr. Hoover is reported
in the report of the Mundt committee as saying it carried material
similar to a memorandum.
I don't Iviiow that there is any testimony that he specifically said
that the document that you had was classified. I do not know that
there was any testimony on that point ; but, in any event, if the docu-
ment on its face was a document addressed to an officer of the Army,
and purportedly carrying a typewritten copy of the signature of Mr.
Hoover, I do not think tliat the receiver of the document has the right
to declassify it, even if he makes excerpts from it.
Senator McCarthy. Regardless of what you or I think. Senator
Case, a document that is properly classified bears a certain inscription.
As I recall the inscription, it states something to the effect that the un-
authorized disclosure of this material is a violation of the Espionage
Act, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. That, I believe, is on every properly
classified document.
That was not on this document. You can assume that this was the
nonsecurity information from a letter from J. Edgar Hoover on very,
very important
Senator Case. It is apparent that your opinion as to whether or not
it was security information and the opinion of the members of the com-
mittee is not the same. It is at variance. I might say that I think
there is information in there other than that which you have indicated,
which makes it of a security character.
It happens that I have handled a good deal of security information
in the Committee on Armed Services, and I have never felt that I had
the privilege, after I had received communications from branches of
the Defense Department, where it is classified as confidential, I have
never supposed that I had the right to abstract or excerpt those com-
munications and make them public.
Senator McCarthy. Were you aware of the fact that Mr. Coleman
was listed in that as an espionage agent under Executive signed testi-
mony ? You expressed the opinion, and I have got a right to testify.
The Chapman. He is not testifying.
Senator McCarthy. When a member of the committee expresses
an opinion, that I assume is in the nature of a question, I shall respond
to it.
Senator Case. I did not put it in the nature of a question, but
whether you thought the receiver of a letter or a communication had
the right to declassify it, and your answer has been made that you
think he does.
Senator McCartpiy. My answer has not been made. When you
make an observation — —
Senator Case. If that is not your correct answer, let us have your
correct answer.
Senator McCarthy. Senator Case, let us have a correct understand-
ing of it.
The Chairman. Let me make this general warning.
416 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator McCarthy. Senator
The Chairman. Just a moment, Senator. I Avant to warn all of
you that in discussing this particular document, that the committee
has ruled that it is classified, that it is security information, so I do
not want any of you inadvertently to disclose the contents of that,
so please refrain. That is a general warning. Now please proceed.
Senator McCarthy. I will certainly follow that. I have a question
of the Chair.
When a member of the committee expresses an opinion during his
questioning of me, even though he says it is not in the nature of a
question, may I i-espond to that opinion, and also that ours is diverse
to it, and the reason for it?
If not, we will have cross-examination here in the nature of speeches,
which I cannot respond to.
Senator Case made an observation which I hope is not shared by
the balance of the committee. I think I have a right to respond on
that. I think we should have a general rule on that. I am not asking
the Chair to rule on it now. It is now 12 : 30, but in the opening of
the afternoon session I would like very much to have a ruling on that
matter.
The Chairman. I cannot say offhand what the members of this
committee can do without the committee itself deciding that matter.
We said at the beginning, in laying down the rules, that members
of the committee would be permitted to ask questions following Mr.
de Furia's questions or Mr. C-hadwick's questions, but that is as far
as we got. We will have a chance to check what he says.
We will now recess until 1 : 30. We do not want to run too late
tonight or this afternoon.
I have an announcement to make. The committee expects to call
to testify, and I do not know whether we will get to them today or not,
but it expects to call General Lawton, Captain Woodward, General
Zwicker, Roy Cohn, James Juliana, and George Anastos, if we can
find him. I do not think they have found him yet.
I am stating that for the information of Senator McCarthy and
his counsel, and the press have been pressing a lot of questions on
me and I have declined to answer a lot of them.
Mr. Williams. Is the cross-examination of this witness completed,
Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. No. The committee members have not had an
opportunity to interrogate Senator McCarthy yet. We have decided
to allow counsel to examine first, and I have not checked with the
committee members to find out whether they want to ask any questions.
Mr. Williams. I assume that would be completed before the other
witnesses would follow.
The Chairman. That is right, I have merely announced what wit-
nesses will follow.
(Whereupon, at 12:38 p. m., a recess was taken until 1:30 p. m..
the same day.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
Thereupon, at 1 : 40 p. m., the committee reconvened.
The Ctiair:man. The committee "will resume session.
As I understand, Mr. Chad wick, committee counsel, has no fur-
ther questions to ask of the witness, Senator McCarthy,
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 417
Mr. Chadwick. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman. The Chair had announced that Senators who are
members of the committee would be given an opportunity to question
Senator McCarthy following the committee staff's examination.
TESTIMONY OF SENATOR JOSEPH R. McCARTHY
Senator McCartht. Mr. Chairman, could I add further to one of
the answers I gave Mr. de Furia? Just so it will be complete, we
were talking about the Presidential directive, and I said I was sure
the President would not sign an order excluding evidence of wrong-
doing coming to a Senate committee. I want to make it very clear
that if the President did sign an order which would allow the classi-
fication of evidence of wrongdoing, that order would be unconstitu-
tional and illegal, and it would not be followed.
The Chairman. I was waiting for the Senators, members of the
committee to be present, so they could ask questions. They are not
all here, yet. I do not know whether they have questions to ask or
not. We will start, however, with Senator Ei*vin. Probably he has
some questions. Senator Ervin is recognized.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask this question
of Senator McCarthy:
Senator, when you made the statement which Mr. de Furia charac-
terized as an invitation to the employees of the executive departments,
did you mean to invite those employees to bring to you, as chairman
of the Investigating Subcommittee, information relating to corrup-
tion, wrongdoing, communism, or treason in Government, even though
such employees could find such information only in documents marked
"classified" by the department in which such employees were working?
Senator McCarthy. Regardless of where they found it, I invited
them to bring evidence of wrongdoing.
Senator Ervin. Then your answer to my question would be "Yes"?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one additional
question.
The Chairman. You may ask as many as you like. We are still
waiting for other Senators to appear.
Senator Ervin. When this so-called 214-page document or paper
writing, I will call it, was brought to you, did you consider it to be a
copy of a bona fide letter written by J. Edgar Hoover to General
Boiling?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, with the deletions that were indicated on
the face of the letter.
Senator Ervin. That is all.
The Chairman. Senator Johnson ?
Senator Johnson. No questions.
The Chairman. Senator Carlson?
Senator Carlson. I do not believe I have any questions.
Tlie Chairman. The other Senators have not yet arrived.
Mr. Williams. I have a couple of questions I wanted to ask the
Senator, on redirect examination. I will be glad to do that now, if
desired.
The Chairman. You may proceed, with the understanding that all
the Senators may have opportunity to inquire later.
418 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. There was a question asked this morning, which
I think probably needs clarification. Senator McCarthy, I believe
the chairman asked you this morning what information you had as of
the time that you wrote your first letter critical of the Gillette com-
mittee— what information you had that they had exceeded the bounds
of the resolution under which they were purporting to operate. I
think that becomes important. I do not know that it is covered fully.
Senator McCarthy. Yes. I will try to answer that, Mr. Williams.
Keep in mind that I am relying upon my memory, now, and I will
give this as best I can.
I knew that they had gone back to the Goma bank account, and
I was a lawyer making, I think, $100 a month or something. They
found no wrongdoing.
Mr. Williams. That was just what they were interested in?
Senator McCarthy. They spent considerable time on that. It was
not within the purview of the Benton resolution, even assuming the
resolution was legal. I had heard that they were checking my record
in law school as to grades and all that sort of thing. They were check-
ing the 1944 campaign, going into the background of those who had
contributed to a campaign, which was unsuccessful, going into the
finances of, I think, all of the members of my family and those who
had contributed to the 1944 campaign, making a detailed investigation
of my father, who had died before I was elected. Dan Buckley had
come to me before that time, and he was one of the committee investi-
gators. He told me that when he developed information that would
not uphold the Pentagon charges, not only was the committee critical
of him, but that other Senators were informed of the material and
called him and castigated him.
I am not sure if the staff information had been released to the very
antagonistic paper, the Providence Journal, before that time, but I
believe it had been.
Again Mr. Williams asked me, and I -have difficulty placing this
as to time. I know that they got photostats of all the correspondence
at the bank, which had nothing to do with the investigation, long
before I was elected Senator, and gave that to opposition papers in my
State. They ran that in serial form. I think they headed them the
"Dear Joe" letters or something like that.
Mr. Williams. This morning you undertook to give an answer on
this subject of solicitation of information of wrongdoing and the
answer was not responsive. I believe you were attempting to focus
the committee's attention upon a committee report which was germane
to this subject.
Will you tell us what that report was ?
Senator McCarthy. Two reports, Mr. Williams, by committees of
the Senate ; one entitled "Subversive and Illegal Aliens in the United
States."
Mr. Williams. What is the date of that?
Senator McCarthy. The date of that is 1951, Committee on the
Judiciary, signed by Herbert O'Conor, the former Senator from
Maryland, Pat Carran, the present Senator from Nevada, William
Jenner, the chairman of one of the Senate committees at this time, two
of the Senate committees.
I would like to quote from this as an official invitation from a Senate
committee to Federal employees.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 419
I quote from the last page:
The subcommittee is determined that, in the interest of internal security of
the United States, there shall be a vigorous, impartial enforcement of the immi-
gration laws, and, accordingly, invites each employee of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service to report to the subcommittee any instance coming to his
attention of laxity in the enforcement of such laws or any other matters affecting
the national security.
And there is another part here, other material which is not perti-
nent. And then the final recommendation :
The .'Subcommittee recommends that copies of this report be made available
to all employees of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
So that this was an invitation that was sent to all the employees
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Justice
Department.
I have one other report.
The Chairman. May the committee have the copy of that docu-
ment which you just read ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, certainly.
I have one other report, Mr. Williams, the report entitled "Inter-
locking Subversion in Government Departments."
It is a report of the subcommittee to investigate the administration
of the Internal Security Act and other internal security laws, and I
quote from page 26 :
The subcommittee rec-ognizes not only that ex-Commuuists could be a source
of much additional information, but in addition many Government workers who
have always been loyal to the United States Government did learn by their contact
with conspirators some details of subversion. If these people will come forward
either to the Federal Bureau of Investigation or to the congre.ssional commit-
tees, great strides will be made in protecting the security of this country.
The subcommittee is aware of the campaign being conducted against the fact-
gathering agencies, both of the executive and of the legislative and must deplore
the inroads this campaign has made. This campaign is based, in part, on mis-
statements of the power and of the functions of the respective security agencies
which are clearly not understood.
So Mr. Williams, here we have an invitation for government em-
ployees to come forward and give evidence of subversion in
government.
Tliis is signed by William E. Jenner, chairman; Arthur V. Wat-
kins, who is chairman of this committee; Robert C. Hendrickson,
Herman Welker, John Marshall Butler, Pat McCarran, James East-
land, Olin Johnson, and to the best of my knowledge the Senate ap-
proved the filing of tliis report, so that you here have apparently
Senate approval of the invitation to government workers to come for-
ward and give information about subversion.
^Ir. Williams. Now, I want to clear up one final matter and I
will be through.
The Chairman. May we have that document also. Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir; that is page 26 from which I read,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Williams. There has been a lot of conversation, Senator IMc-
Carthy
Senator McCarthy. May I say, Mr. Williams, this, I believe, was
approved by the Judiciary Committee, the full Judiciary Committee.
^Ir, Williams. There has been a lot of questioning and there has
been some conversation this morning about this two-and-one-quarter
420 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
page document. It has repeatedly been said that this was classified
and the reason for the statements that it is a classified document have
been that the Attorney General has said that it is a classified document.
When did the Attorney General advance his opinion on that subject?
Senator McCarthy. The Attorney General did not state that this
was classified until sometime during the Stevens-McCarthy hearing.
Up until that time there was no indication of the classification except
the heading which I understand is put on many letters saying "Confi-
dential," which is not a classification.
If it is an official classification, I understand there is a stamp
stamped on the document classifying it and carrying certain excerpts
from the Espionage Act.
Mr. Williajms. Now, at the time that you received this particular
document which we are speaking of at the moment, was any infor-
mation given to you regarding wrongdoing or inefficiency in the execu-
tive departments ?
Senator IMcCartht. Yes, there was.
Mr. Williams. By the informant ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, there was. The informant pointed out
that there was.
• Mr. Williams. I want you to say what that is, without infringing
on the Chair's ruling that we may not go into the contents of the
document.
Senator McCarthy. I will not go into the contents of the document.
The man who brought this to me said that he was deeply disturbed.
He knew that there were some 6 or 7 reports and I gave the dates of
the reports before the Miindt committee, to the effect that there was
Communist infiltration in our top secret radar laboratories.
He felt and I felt that that was dangerous to this Nation unless
something was done and that men would die because of it, and some
undoubtedly will die because of the 214-year delay.
Mr. Williams. Now, without covering anything that infringes
again on the Chair's ruling, the name of Aaron Coleman was men-
tioned here this morning and it was mentioned during the Army-
McCarthy hearings, and for that reason I ask you a question about it
now: Had he not been examined in open session months and months
before the Army-McCarthy hearings?
Senator McCarthy. All of the facts on Coleman, I believe, had
been divulged by the investigating committee long before the Army
hearing.
The Chairmax. Which committee do you refer to? You see, we
have several. We have the Internal Security Committee, subcommit-
tee of the Judiciary Committee, and we also have the committee that
you head. So, for the record, I want to have it cleared up as to
which committee you refer to.
Senator McCarthy. I am referring to the committee of which I
was chairman.
Mr. Williams. I see that Senator Case and Senator Stennis are
here now and I defer to them.
The Chairmax. The Chair wants to refer to the two reports from
the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee of the
Senate.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 421
I note that in each case there was no reason for the Senate not to
read it.
The other one, the report of July 30, 1953, which is signed unani-
mously by all members of the subcommittee, Internal Security Sub-
committee of the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate,
there is no statement there that would indicate in any way that the
committee was inviting anybody to bring in classified material or
securit}^ information. It is very, very general. I think, of course,
the Senator has read it so it is in the record. I merely want to call
attention to that for whatever it is worth. It is in evidence.
Senator McCarthy. May I say
The Chairman. Inasmuch as my name was mentioned, I felt it was
only fair to state
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I say that the reading of
those two documents will show that the committees were inviting in-
formation of wrongdoing, subversion, and they did not exclude any-
thing that was stamped by "classified." It was a general invitation.
It was almost identical in language with the invitation which I ex-
tended to Government employees.
The Chairman. I don't intend to argue the question of whether it
is or is not. I think the evidence will show — it's all in the record —
but what the committee was doing there, as I recall, in a cursory or
rather hurried reading of it now — it seems clearly to be in line with
the invitation extended hj the FBI to anyone who had information
with respect to these matters to bring it to the FBI. It was along the
same line.
However, I have read the exact language of these two documents.
That language is in the record, and what you said before the Army-
McCarthy controversy committee hearings, and which you said here,
is all there so it will be there for the benefit of the Senate as it wishes
to study those matters.
My only purpose in commenting is to point out that we considered
a rather general invitation without going into the point of asking
anyone to bring in what might be considered classified information.
I don't think there was any intention at that time to ask anyone to
do that. That is, as I recall, when this matter was discussed in the
committee.
Senator ]\IcCarthy. I don't want to argue with the chairman, but
may I say that I repeatedly requested information of wrongdoing,
graft, corruption, communism, treason. I did not mention the word
"classified" either. I used about the same language you used there
in an official document and lest the record not be clear, you said this
was principally requested to give to the FBI.
The Chairman. This is the same language the FBI used in re-
questing people generally to furnish them with information.
I don't know whether it was the FBI Director or the President,
or the head of some department who did that, but there was a request
to the people of the United States, anybody, everybody, including
government officials, to give what information they could give on any
of these matters.
Senator McCarthy. I don't want to belabor this point, but just
so we all know what is in this request, it is a request to all Federal
employees to bring all information Avhich they had of subversion to
422 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
congressional committees. That is what I have asked them to do,
also.
The Chairman. All right ; it is all in the record.
Mr. WiiiLiAMs. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be most helpful —
I don't want to burden this record with additional materials, but I
feel that as part of a legal position to which we adhere, it would be
helpful for the Senate to have in the record of this proceeding the
report of a discussion in the House Avhich ultimately resulted in a
resolution by the House.
I have reference to the colloquy that is reported in volume 94, part 4,
of the Congressional Record, the 80th Congress, 2d session, beginning
at page 4777.
The Chairjman. Without reading it, will you submit it to us and
let us examine it.
We can rule on it later.
Mr. Williams. May I tell you what I have reference to?
The Chairman. I thought you had finished.
Mr. Williams. I am not going to read it. Pages 4777 to 4783.
That is a report of some proceedings on April 2i2 of 1948. I think
that this fairly accurately states our legal position on this point.
The Chairman. In other words, you are citing it as you would a
case in court, just for the legal arguments, and not for any factual
matters.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. We will take a look at it and see if it fits that
situation. If it does, we will probably receive it. At any rate, the
committee will consider it.
Mr. Williams. I am thrcugh.
The Chairman. All right.
Two Senators were not here when we were examining Senator
McCarthy. They will now have an opportunity.
Senator Case, do vou have any further questions to ask Senator
McCarthy?
Senator Case. I do, but I will be glad to defer to Senator Stennis.
Senator Stennis. Go ahead.
Senator Case. Senator McCarthy, how long did you have this two-
and-a-quarter page document before you sought to bring it to the
attention of the Secretary of the Army ?
Senator McCarthy. I think. Senator Case, I received it in late
April or early May. It was one of many
The Chairman. Which year ?
Senator McCarthy. 1953. The staff was instructed to conduct an
investigation of Communist infiltration at Fort Monmouth. This
was only one of the many cases of information we had. When we
verified the fact that there was Communist infiltration, we imme-
diatel.y brought it to the attention of Mr. Stevens.
Senator Case. You brought it to the attention of Mr. Stevens at
that time, in 1953 ?
Senator McCarthy. In 1953.
Senator Case. The document
Senator McCarthy. I don't think we mentioned the document.
We knew he had that information in his files. We brought it to his
attention, the fact of subversion. We invited him to send anyone he
cared to to attend our executive sessions, to hear all the evidence.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 423
Senator Case. Mr. Stevens had that before him in 1953, April or
May?
Senator McCarthy. Well, we didn't ask what we call evidence then,
but during the hearings he confirmed the fact that he did have the
15-page document, which included all of the two-and-a-quarter page
document, so that it is now known that he had the document.
I was sure he had it then. That was confirmed during the Army
hearings.
Senator Case. Do you make a practice, when evidence of wrong-
doing is brought before you, for your committee communicating with
the head of the agency involved in an attempt to get the wrongdoing
stopped at the earliest possible date ?
Senator McCarthy. Not just on the first trip. We try and verify
the facts first. We have got a small staff. We cannot make the in-
vestigation ourselves. We turn the tip over to the FBI, if it is within
their jurisdiction.
Senator Case. This particular document was in your possession for
approximately a year before you brought it to the attention of the
Secretary ?
Senator McCarthy. No. no. I think the staff inquiries commenced
witliin a matter of a couple of months after that. I would have to
ask the staff on that.
Roy, a couple of months after that you started the staff inquiries?
(Roy shook his head in the affirmative.)
Senator McCarthy. And the military was notified whom we wanted
to interrogate so they knew we were conducting an investigation of
subversion at Fort Monmouth.
Senator Case. I don't care to labor the point. I was merely seek-
ing to find out if a part of the time that elapsed during which this
document was in existence, if part of that time elapsed after it had
come into your possession and whether or not you were making efforts
through the head of the agency to see that it was brought to their
attention.
Senator McCarthy. We got to this matter as soon as we possibly
could.
Senator Case. I think the record is probably complete on that.
There is one point, and I think it goes to one of the category charges
that has not been dwelt on very much. In fact, I think about the only
thino- that has come up on it in connection with the whole hearing
has been the recital of the statement attributed to you as having been
made with respect to Senator Hendrickson and the testimony which
your counsel developed with respect to a telephone conversation that
you had with Senator Hendrickson.
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Senator Case. Now, that particular category had two allegations
in it, so to speak, one dealing with your remark about Senator Flan-
ders, and substantial testimony was developed on that by incorporat-
ing in the record his speech.
The only testimony on the Hendrickson statement — that is, at least
in justification of it, or to show provocation — that I recall, was the
report of your telephone conversation witli him in which there was
some discussion about whether or not he was going to sign your report.
424 HEARINGS OlSr SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Yesterday, it happened that little additional testimony came in, I
think more or less by accident, I don't think it was intended to bear
npon that, but it mia'ht have some relationship to it and I want to
direct an inquiry to tliat.
You will recall that early in the hearing your counsel made some
reference to the so-called addendum and I think read with some
emi^hasis a sentence or two in that addendum which spoke of certain
of the matters in the HHH report as beino; moot, since they related
to matters which had transpired prior to the 195:^ election.
Now, it developed in Senator Hayden's testimony yesterday that
that addendum which carried this statement some of the matters were
moot was written by Senator Hendrickson.
I want you to think about that just a minute and the implications
of it, that the sentence or two in that addendum which spoke of>
certain matters as being moot was authored by Senator Hendrickson
aaid the testimony of Senator Hayden then concurred in by Senator
Hennings.
The question I want to direct to you is :
At the time you made the utterance with respect to Senator Hen-
drickson, did you know that Senator Hendrickson was authoring or
had authorized this addendum, including this sentence or two upon
which your counsel has placed some emphasis as declaring certain
issues to be moot.
Senator McCarthy. No ; I did not.
May I say, Mr. Case, I very much dislike discussing the Senator
Hendrickson matter. I will do it if you insist.
I like him personally. Despite the fact we disagreed very vigor-
ously at the time he signed the report, I consider him a friend of
mine at this time.
If you want to go into that matter, I will.
Senator Case. Well, I do, and I think, in fairness to you, it should
be gone into a little bit further.
Senator McCarthy. All right.
Senator Case. You have now testified you did not know of his
position as set forth in the addendum at the time you made the ut-
terance.
Senator McCarthy. No.
Senator Case. Earlier, during the day, you referred to the fact
that in the Senate if a Member of the Senate refers disrespectfully
to another Senator, he may be taken off the floor, that is, he ma}' be
seated and, as you and I both know, and as the members of the
committee know, it is customary then in the Senate for someone to
move that the Senator be permitted to proceed in order. That could
be an offense referring to a Senator or to a State.
My recollection is that in the House of Representatives a somewhat
similar rule exists: That if a Member utters a disrespectful word —
but there it is not merely with respect to a Member of the House, but
also a Member of the Senate — he nuiy be seated upon some Member
of the House or the Speaker calling him to order. There, I think,
there are two courses : Either the Speaker will frequently say, "The
Member may ])roceed, but in order," or a Member may demand that
the words be taken down and presented for the Speaker to determine
they are a transgression of the rule; but in that case, before the
Speaker makes the determination, it frequently happens that the
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 425
Member of the House who has uttered the offensi%'^ words will ask to
have them withdrawn. If he does ask to have them withdrawn, he is
accorded that courtesy, permitting: them to be withdrawn.
I was in the House for a number of years and that is my recollection
of the procedure.
This utterance which you are alleged to have made with respect to
Senator Hendrickson was not made on the floor of the Senate, but I,
personally, feel that, in fairness to you, now that you have said that
the utterance was made at a time when you did not know that Senator
Henrickson authored the addendum, you should have an opportunity
to say wliether or not, as of today, in the light of this knowledge of
Senator Hayden's testimony yesterday, you would make that utterance
now, or whether you would reaffirm it.
Senator McCarthy. There is no way of withdrawing a statement
that you make publicly. I made this statement in the light of the
report, a report which was entirely dishonest, in m}^ opinion went far
beyond the resolution.
Senator Hendrickson had told me that he had not read it, said he
would sign it, but he would disagi'ee insofar as it digressed from the
facts.
The report contained statements such as this: "It is rumored that;
reports were heard that; McCarthy may have done this; we have no
evidence to that effect."
I made the statement in the light of his signing that report, which
was based 95 percent on hearsay, and not upon evidence before the
committee and there is no way on earth you can withdraw a statement
you made 3 or 4 years ago. You could withdraw a statement from
the record in the Senate, but that is an entirely different thing from
withdrawing a statment you make about an individual.
May I say. Senator Case, if I may, and this may not appear to be
responsive, I feel a Senator enjoys no special status, except on the
Senate floor. When he is off the Senate floor, any man can discuss him
just as freely as he will discuss someone who is not a Senator. In
other words as I said yesterday, there is no halo that surrounds the
throne.
Senator Case. The other day, Senator, testifying with regard to
the Zwicker incident, you took occasion to reaffirm the statement that
you had made and said you stood upon tliat which you said and you
would say it again today.
Now, I am not referring specifically to the Zwicker incident, but
I am just calling attention to a somewhat analogous situation and
I wondered if, in the light of the new evidence, as to Senator Hen-
drickson's initiative and position with respect to the report, whether
or not now that would make any difference in the utterance which
you made.
Senator McCarthy. I would have no comment on the Hendrickson
statement at this time.
Mr. WiLLiA3is. I don't think, Mr. Chairman, that was a proper
question. The charge here is that Senator McCarthy made a state-
ment, and the question is whether that statement is a censurable act.
Senator McCarthy explained, on direct examination, the context in
which that statement was made.
426 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
I don't think it becomes germane or relevant in this inquiry to
probe what he now thinks about any Member of the Senate because
there is no charge on that, as to his feelings, his likes or dislikes with
respect to other persons sitting in the Senate at this moment.
So, I think that question is improper and I ask it go out of the
record.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman.
The CiiAiKMAN. Senator.
Mr. Williams. I am sorry to have to say
The Chairman. Well
Mr. Williams. A question which is propounded by one of the com-
mittee members is improper ; but I do think it is and I would be less
than honest if I didn't say that to the chairman and ask that it
go out.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to insist
The Chairman. You have made a record. Now, let's hear from
Senator Case as to what the justification is.
Senator Case.
Senator Case. May I say, Mr. Chairman, I thought the question,
on the face of it, was in the interest of Senator McCarthy.
I had called attention to the fact that in the House, if a Member
withdrew his remarks, that it operated to cleanse the record, so to
speak.
I had called attention to the fact that there had been some new
testimony adduced as to the position of Senator Hendrickson with
respect to the report, and I w^anted to give Senator McCarthy the
opportunity, so to speak, to change the record.
Air. Williams. I don't think
Senator Case. The question was not prejudicial against Senator
McCarthy. I don't care if it is answered or not. If he doesn't want
to answer it, or if his counsel doesn't want him to answer
The Chairman. He said he didn't think he should make any com-
ment.
Mr. Williams. I don't think he should make a comment on what
his present pleadings are regarding any other Senator, because there
is no issue at stake on that subject matter, and I still repeat — I say
this most respectfully. Senator Case — I say this most respectfully to
you, sir, because I know the question was asked in good faith, but I
believe it was improper.
The Chairman. By the way, here is the situation you confront the
chairman with : Senator Case is a coequal member of this committee.
If we were a court, which we are not, and one of the judges asked
the question, the other judges are not going to say his question cannot
stay in the record.
Mr. Williams. Well, I am satisfied to let the record stay at its
present posture, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. That is where it will stay.
Mr. Williams. Thank you.
Senator McCarthy. May I say this, Mr. Chairman, so tliat my
position is clear
The Chairman. You said you had no comment.
Senator McCarthy. I have no animosity toward Senator Hendrick-
son at this time. I like him. I think he is a friend of mine.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 427
Senator Case. Just one further question, Mr. Cliairman.
The Chairman. Senator Case.
Senator Case. I think this is competent : Senator McCarthy, were
you present on the floor of the Senate the afternoon that a very large
number of Members of the Senate paid tribute to Senator Hendrickson
in connection with his prospective retirement from the Senate ?
Mr. Williams. I think this question is designed to do exactly the
same thing as the previous question was designed to do. It is designed
to create an embarrassing situation on a matter that is wholly irrele-
vant.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, it isn't designed to create an embar-
rassing situation. It is designed to create a record that
Mr. Williams. I think you know the position I have taken on this,
Senator Case, and I can't believe that you are trying to help us now.
The Chairman. Well, whether he is trying to help you or not, the
Senator has the right to try to get the
Senator Case. I am trying
The Chairman. Trying to get the record straight now.
As I say, the Chair and the other members of the committee
Senator INIcCarthy. I was not present.
The Chairman. Just a moment, so I may make this statement.
The Chair and the other members of the committee not asking the
question are confronted with this situation: That it is very difficult
to say Avliat any member of the committee may ask about.
My opinion is — my own personal opinion is — you are probably
right, as a matter of law.
Now, it is up to Senator Case, if he wants to press for an answer.
I do not know whether he does or not.
Senator McCarthy. I will be very glad to answer the question.
The Chairman. Just a moment. Your counsel goes one way, and
you, the other.
Mr. Williams. Senator McCarthy tells me he was not present, so
the whole thing becomes moot.
Senator McCarthy. I will be glad to answer that question, now.
The Chairman. Then, Senator Case, do you want it answered?
Do you want it answered in view of what I have just said?
Senator Case. I do not care particularly, except I do want to state
very frankly and sincerely to counsel for the defense that my question
was not prejudicial against Senator McCarthy, and not intended to be.
I was intending- — I do not know whether this is proper for me to
say, but I would like to say this — for a separate congressional hear-
ing— for a senatorial hearing.
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
The Chairman. If it is applicable to any Senator, we will have
to watch our steps.
Senator McCarthy. May I answer that question which was asked
by Senator Case ? I will answer first, "No" ; and I would like to give
you my position, if I may. I would like to give you my position,
and it is this, that when you are discussing a Senator off the floor
of the Senate, you are in an entirely different position than when dis-
cussing him on the floor. You can say what you think about a man ;
3^ou have got freedom of speech.
I was greatly disturbed by what I thought was a most unusual
Senate report, the most unusual Senate report I have ever seen, based
52461—54— — 28
428 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
on rumor, and statements based on hearsay, that "McCarthy may have
performed this illegal act; we have got no evidence that he did."
And then, when I heard Senator Hennings say "I liave not read the
report, but I signed it ; but I disagree, insofar as it does not conform
to the facts,'' I felt that I wjis justified in making the statement that
I did. I do think we have free speech, regardless of whether it in-
volves a Senator.
Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, the question was not intended to elicit
the statement that the counsel has implied. The question was in-
tended to show the importance of having any statement that Senator
McCarthy might make, with reference to his attitude toward Senator
Hendrickson's position in the record, in the most favorable light that
it could be, to Senator McCarthy, when this record goes before the
Senate and into the atmosphere of the Senate, that might have been
reflected by statements that Avere made on the basis of which I relied.
I am seeking to give Senator McCarthy an op])ortunity to have the
best statement that he wanted to make, in the light of the evidence ad-
duced in this hearing.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions? Senator Case?
Senator Case. No.
The Chairman. Does any other Senator have a question ?
Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Stennis.
Senator Stennis. Before this closes, I want to ask the Chair one
question here.
Does the record show the meaning of these various classification
marks or stamps that may be placed on different documents? I think
Senator McCarthy handed up something on that to the Chair, just be-
fore recess.
The Chairman. That was in reference about the so-called classified
documents, and so on.
Senator Stennis. What I am interested in is the record showing
these different classification marks, and just what they mean, particu-
larly from the FBI, and whether or not those marks have had their
meanings changed, or whether a different mark has been used for
higher priority and second priority and third priority.
Senator McCarthy. May I answer that ?
Senator Stennis. I want to know just what the record shows, and
I think it ought to be in the record now, indisputably.
Mr. Williams. It is very simple.
The Chairman. I will permit Mr. Chadwick to make a brief state-
ment on that.
Mr. Chadwick. I call the Senator's attention to the fact that that
was the subject of questions in the Mundt subconnnittee, extended in
the record of this committee by reference and judicial notice of the
facts. At the time these documents were dated, the hiirhest classifica-
tion that the FBI used "Confidential" or "Personal and Confidential,"
and that other classifications were technical. I have forgotten it all
now. They were adopted by different departments subsequently.
But there is no question that the language, the words which seem to
appear on these documents, under the testimony in that case, are the
highest classification that Mr. Hoover could place upon them.
Senator Stennis. That is the basis, then, for a question I want to
ask Senator McCarthy.
I
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 429
Senator McCarthy. Could I first, Senator, correct Mr. Chadwick ?
Senator Stennis. Surely.
Senator McCarthy. A stamp, stamped on the document, "Confi-
dential," made the highest classification. However, there will be
testimon}^ here by one of the witnesses not called by me — there will
be testimony here by a witness not called by me, but by the Chair — ^to
the effect that, whife he was in the FBI, he received innumerable let-
ters marked "Personal and Confidential," typewritten on them ; and
that was never considered to be classified.
That was just the same as though I was to write you a personal
letter. However, if it is to be classified as "confidential," then there
is the stamp placed upon the document. There is no evidence that
there was any such stamp placed upon this docmnent; and that makes
a big difference.
Senator Stenxis. It has been frequently said here that this so-
called two-and-a-quarter-page document had the highest classification
that the FBI gives to any document. So your position is that it did
not have that classification, and was not so marked ?
Senator McCarthy. That it had no classification — was not classi-
fied— had nothing on it to indicate that it was classified.
Senator Stenxis. And your position is that the words "personal
and confidential" on that document meant no more than a letter from
Mr. A would mean, marked "personal and confidential"?
Senator McCarthy. Right ; no more than as though you write me
a letter saying "This is personal and confidential." If it is to be
classified, there would be the classification stamp stamped upon the
document.
Senator Stenxis. So this letter purported to be a letter from the
FBI to the General whose name I do not readily recall ?
Senator McCarthy. General Boiling.
Senator Stexxis. It was General Boiling, and it was marked "per-
sonal and confidential," and still you did not think that that meant
it had any kind of classification ?
Senator McCarthy. No, I did not. And may I say, Senator Sten-
nis, that even if I thought the original document had a classification —
which it undoubtedly did have — the original document undoubtedly
had a classification — once the security information was removed, I
strongly felt that I had no choice, when this officer gave me the dates
of other like documents — did not give me the documents, but gave
me the dates — all along the same line, warning of the exploratory or
"top secret" laboratory, I felt that I, as chairman of the Government
Operations Committee, did not take action, that might mean that
many xVmericans would die because of that, and that I had the duty
to ferret out the Communists. We did that. They have been re-
moved since we started our activity.
Senator Stexxis. My inquiry, here, now, though, is just this : Wh&t
meaning did those words "personal and confidential" carry to you,
with reference to this being a classified document?
Senator McCarthy. No more than if I received a letter from you
saying "personal and confidential."
Senator Stexxis. All right.
Mr. Chairman, the other points that I had in mind have already been
covered here, either on cross-examination or on direct examination.
I have no other, questions.
430 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The Chairman. Senator Carlson, have you any questions ?
Senator Carlson. No, Mr. Chairman, I believe not.
Senator McCarthy. Senator Stennis, may I point out that the
letter, on its face, sliowed that all of the security information had
been eliminated, so that while it may have been properly stamped, in
the first place, the document which was apparently in the Army files
bore no classification.
Senator Stennis. Well, you say it showed on its face that it had
the security information eliminated. Now, there were no markings
on there to indicate that — you just concluded that, from looking at
the document; is that correct?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, there was information. For example,,
paragraph 5 — you may recall the document. I have it in my mind's
eye — paragraph 5 showed that the information in regard to a certain
individual was all eliminated, and then, before the names of the in-
dividuals, who were working at Fort Monmouth, there was the indica-
tion that there had been security information, which had been elim-
inated. There was an evaluation, so you could see by looking at the
document that the names of informants in investigative technique,,
and so forth, of the bureau are no longer in the letter.
Senator Stennis. Well, Senator, one more question.
I noticed this morning you referred to that document as an Army-
document.
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Senator Stennis. You call it an Army document, even though it
was signed, or purported to be signed, by Mr. Hoover, of the FBI?
Senator McCarthy. Yes. I think, once someone in the Army evalu-
ated the security information, deleted that information, and put it in
their files, and did not stamp it with a classification, I think it then
became an Army document, and was no longer an FBI document.
Senator Stennis. That is all. Thank you.
Mr. Chadwick. I would like to supplement my answer to Senator
Stennis, to this effect. To the best of my knowledge and belief, there
is no evidence in the record that anything more is necessary to mark
these documents classified than the words which appeared upon them ;
that, since they were dealt with during the Mundt hearing, both Mr.
Hoover and the Attorney General of the United States
Mr. WiLiiiAMS. I do not think this is proper, ]Mr. Chairman, as to
what INIr. Hoover or Mr. Brownell did thereafter. This has been gone
into frequently with respect to matters classified in the Army classi-
fied hearings, but that does not have any relevancy here — Mr. Hoover,.
I understand from the evidence, did not seem to be clear on that —
matters classified in 1953.
The Chairman. It was called forth by an explanation. The in-
quiry was directed to the Chairman by Senator Stennis.
Senator Stennis. Yes.
The Chairman. And, as a result, I had to make the ex])lanation.
I think we are just arguing about something that is already in the
record, and, if we go into it, obviously we cannot bring the document,
out and compare it, and all that sort of thing, so
Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman, I did not want to bring up any-
thing to argue about. I simply wanted the record to reflect the
meanings, whatever the meanings are, and so that there may be an
opportunity of knowing what the contention is.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 431
The Chairman. Our reference is to our own counsel, and the counsel
of Senator McCarthy. Maybe we should not still argue. I think we
can stop it, right here. But the evidence is here before us, and I am
not reflecting on either of the gentlemen, but the quickest and easiest
way to handle that is to say we will go to the record — and there it is.
Senator McCarthy. There will be testimony on this point, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairivian. I have 1 or 2 questions that I wanted to ask, with
reference to your position, since the subject has been raised by Senator
Case and Senator Stennis. It is in respect to the statements made
outside the Senate Chamber, itself, when it was in session, by some
Members of the Senate about other Members of the Senate, or about
some committees of the Senate.
Now, I think you have made your position clear, that you think
it is right for any Senator to comment, in almost any language he
may desire, or that he may use, on the distant scene, as long as it is not
made on the floor of the Senate. Am I right on that ?
Senator McCarthy. The right not only of a Senator, but of any of
our constituents.
The Chairman. All right ; but we are talking about Senators now,
and the Senators are not the only ones who have a right to discipline
a Senator for anything he does on the floor of the Senate, off the floor
of the Senate, if it reflects upon the Senate. I say the Senate itself
is to be the sole judge of the qualifications of the Members of the
Senate.
Since that is the case, now, I want to ask this question, in respect to
your position on the letters that you wrote to the chairman or chairmen
of the subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of the Rules Com-
mittee of the Senate ; and you regard the fact to be that your right,
there, to say what you please would be about the same as it would be
to make remarks about any individual Senator, so long as they were
not made on the floor of the Senate ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I feel that a Senator has
not only a right, but a duty, to call attention to wrongdoing on the
part of" Senators, if he feels that they are in the wrong. You and I
might disagree about whether or not the committee was right or wrong.
But I strongly felt, as I wrote, that I had to call it to the attention
of the American people. There is no law which denies me the right
to do that. If it were done on the floor of the Senate, then I could
be set down, as the rules provide ; but there are no rules or regulations
that provide that a Senator cannot say what he thinks about what he
considers wrongdoing; and I am not asking you to decide whether
the committee was in the wrong or in the right, but take my word for
it, I felt very strongly, and I feel now that they were completely in
error. I said exactly what I thought; I think I would be derelict in
the performance of my duties if I did not do it.
The Chairman. Well, what I started with — your position, then, is
that you had a perfect riglit — not only a right, but a duty, to express
what you thought about them.
Senator McCarthy. Right.
The Chairman. Even though you were not on the floor of the
Senate ?
Senator McCarthy. Right.
432 HEARINGS OX SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The Chairman. I think that covers the question I raise. I wanted
to be sure that I got your position, if I did nothing other than to clear
up the argument. So that is all.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I anticipated that there might be
some questions with respect to this "on the floor, ofT the floor" matter,
and I prepared a memorandum which I will submit to the committee
on this subject.
The Chairman. I will be very glad to have it, because it is so very
easy, I think, and probably for the first time, on a set of facts that I
have not heard before in connection with this history of the Senate.
I think it is one of the most important questions raised, and that is
the reason I wanted to be sure we had Senator McCarthy's view on it.
It will be helpful to the Senate, and helpful to us to know just where
he stands in the light of the letters and in making the statements
to the Senators.
Senator McCarthy. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that people, in-
cluding Senators, have said some very uncomplimentary things about
me. I have never felt that they should be censured.
I think that every Senator should have a right to say anything about
any
The Chairman. As long as they are provoked.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Ervin.
Senator Er^^en. There is one question which was brought to my
mind by Senator Stennis' questions and the answers of Senator
McCarthy.
Senator McCarthy, I understand your position is this: that this
purported letter that we have been talking about was not a classified
document.
Is it your position that the information contained in that purported
letter was not classified information?
Senator McCarthy. It was not classified until Herb Brownell clas-
sified it during the McCarthy hearings.
Now, whether he had the right to classify it at that time, or not, I do
not know.
My position is that it was not classified from the time I received
it lintil the time that Brownell either classified it or attempted to
classify it.
Senator Ervin. I will ask you this question, Senator : Did you not
make a distinction between information relating to the national de-
fense and information which is merely classified ?
Senator McCarthy. I am not sure that I understand that.
Yes ; I think I do now.
If the document disclosed atomic-bomb secrets, defense secrets, in
other words, how we will defend ourselves in case of invasion, things
like that, certainly it would be a violation of the Espionage Act to
use that.
However, keeping in mind here, Senator, that we are not dealing
with that, we are dealing with what I consider a warning that there
was a dangerous situation at a key defense installation and I felt
I had to act upon it.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 433
Senator Ervin. Did you not consider information to that effect to
be information relating to the national defense, regardless of whether
or not it was classified information ?
Senator McCarthy. It showed that our national defense was in
grave danger because of the enemy's infiltration.
To that extent, yes; and to that extent we had to look into it.
It did not disclose any secrets of our national defense of any kind,
and you have seen the letter, and you know that.
Senator Ervten. Of course a clocument becomes a classified docu-
ment merely because some department, some official so designates it.
But information which relates to national defense in and of itself
denoting its true nature, regardless of whether some official stamped
something on that document containing such information ; is that not
so?
Senator McCarthy. I think you could tell from examining a docu-
ment whether or not it should be classified by observing the rules
covering secret, top secret, and confidential material.
This document, as you all know, because you saw it, merely points
out that there was a dangerous situation at Fort Monmouth, and I
might add to that, that it is important to keep in mind also that the
testimony before the Army Committee was that there were some
5 or 6 other like documents, so that this was not an isolated document.
Senator Ervin. The only point I am trying to bring out in trying
to understand your position in this : Do you contend that the informa-
tion contained in this so-called letter does or does not relate to na-
tional defense ?
Senator McCarthy. It relates to the national defense in this re-
spect in that it shows that our national defense was being endangered
by possible subversion.
Senator Ervin. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Are there anj^ further questions?
If there are no further questions, we will call the next witness.
Mr. DE FuRiA. We desire to call General Lawton, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. You may be seated. General. You have heretofore
been sworn.
TESTIMONY OF MAJ. GEN. KIRKE B. LAWTON— Eecalled
The Chairman. You were previously sworn by the Chair ?
General Lawton. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And as the Chair recalls, you were excused after
you stated that you could not relate the conversation which you had
with General Zwicker.
The committee, as I think the record will show, expressed by the
Chair, the committee was not satisfied with that situation even though
there had been no request b}' counsel for Senator McCarthy for an
order ordering you to go on with that conversation, notwithstanding
the objection that was raised.
Since that time, 3^ou were excused temporarily^ and since that time
the committee, through its chairman and upon the authorization of
the committee, has contacted the Department of Defense and it has
received a letter with respect to the matter of your testimony and pos-
sible testimony of General Zwicker.
434 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
At this point, I think the record should show a copy of tliis letter, so
it will be placed in the record. I will read it myself. The letter is
as follows :
The Secketauy of Defense,
Washington, D. C, Scptcmhcr 10, 195^.
Hon. ARTHUR V. Watkins,
United States Senate,
Washington, D. C.
Deak Senator AVatkins : It is the policy of the Department of Defense to
cooperate fully and completely with all the committees of the Congress. Under
this policy it was never intended by the Department to limit the testimony of
Generals Uawton and Zwicker except insofar as limitations are inherent in the
Presidential order of May 17, 1954.
As a matter of legal application, the Attorney General advises me that the
principles of the Presidential order of May 17, 1954, are as completely applicable
to any committee as they were to the Committee on Government Operations.
However, at your request and for the purpose of clearing up any possible mis-
understanding about the limitations on the testimony of Generals Lawton and
Zwicker in the present hearing before the special committee of the Senate, of
which you are the chairman, the Department of Defense will encourage these
two witnesses to testify to any matters properly before your connnittee that are
not clearly prohibited by security regulations or the Presidential order of
May 17, 1954.
I understand the Senate has authorized your committee to request witnesses
to produce such correspondence, books, papers, and documents as may be per-
tinent to the present hearing. Generals Lawton and Zwicker will be prepared
to produce any such documents unless the production of them would clearly l>e
a violation of national security regulations or a violation of the President's-
order of May 17, 1954. which in part reads as follows :
"Because it is essential to efficient and effiective administration that employees
of the executive branch be in a position to be completely candid in advising with
each other on official matters, and because it is not in the public interest that any
of their conversations or communications, or any documents or reproductions,
concerning such advice be disclosed, you will instruct employees of your Depart-
ment that in all of their api>earances before the sul)committee of the Senate
Committee on Government Operations regarding the inquiry now before it
that they are not to testify to any such conversations or communications or to
produce any such documents or reproductions. This principle must be main-
tained regardless of who would be benefited by such disclosures."
Testimony regarding facts, and action documents in regard to orders, actions,
and similar matters not directly affecting national security and not dealing
with conversations, communications, and letters affecting policy and reasoning
back of the actions in many cases are not prohibited by the forementioned
Presidential order.
Generals Lawton and Zwicker are being so advised. This was the intent
of the advice previously given by General Counsel Brucker to General Lawton
when he was advised that his retirement status did not change his responsibility
under the Presidential order.
The full text of this letter will be furnished personally to Generals Lawton
and Zwicker for their guidance.
Sincerely,
C. E. Wilson.
The Chairman. C. E. Wilson, of course, is the Secretary of De-
fense, with whom I conferred and presented the request of the
committee.
Now, Mr. de Furia will examine this witness, and I take it that you
are now fully supplied with the information contained in this letter
that I have just read, that you have had a copy of it and your counsel.
General Lawtox. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. So, counsel will now examine you with respect to
the matter which you stated you could not testify to the other day.
Proceed, Mr. de Furia.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 435
Mr. DE FuRiA. General Lawton, I think we already have in the
record your full name, address, and position; is that correct?
General Lawton. That's correct.
Mr. DE FuKiA. How lone; have you known General Zwicker, sir?
General Lawtox. Since November or December 1953.
]\lr. DE FuRiA. On what day did you first meet General Zwicker?
General Lawton. Sometime in November, early December 1953.
Mr. DE FuRiA. And where, sir?
General Lawtox. Cam]) Kilmer, N. J.
Mr. DE FuRiA. AVere you on duty at that time ?
General Lawton. At Fort INIonmouth, N. J., I was on duty.
Mr. DE FuRiA. In what capacity?
General Lawtox. Commandino; general of the post.
Mr. DE FuRiA. In what capacity was General Zwicker on duty at
Camp Kilmer?
General Lawtox. He was commandino- creneral at Camp Kilmer.
Mr. DE FuRiA. I take it you went to Camp Kilmer for some purpose
or other ; is that rig-ht ?
General Lawtox. That's correct.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Without tellinc; me what was the substance or sub-
ject of the conversation, did you have a conversation with General
Zwicker at about the time indicated, in which the name of Senator
McCarthjT^ was mentioned?
I want just a yes-or-no answer, if I can get it.
General Lawtox. Yes.
Mr. DE FuRiA. You did ?
General Lawtox. Yes.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Do you remember. General, any of the exact words
you used in the conversation with reference to Senator McCarthy?
General Lawtox. I remember many of my own, some of General
Zwicker 's which was on classified matter.
Mr. DE FuRiA. I didn't quite get that.
General Lawtox. Which was on classified matter.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Unclassified ?
General Lawtox. On classified matter.
]Mr. DE FuRiA. On a classified matter ?
General LAAvrox. We had a conversation on classified matters.
That is not to infer that that is all we had.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Do you remember specifically any of the words used
by General Zwicker w ith reference to Senator McCarthy ?
All I am asking for here is a yes-or-no answer.
General Lawtox^. No.
Mr. DE FuRiA. You do not ?
Then do I understand, sir, that independent of any Presidential,
Executive, or Army order, you could not testify with any accuracy
to any of the words used by General Zwicker; is that correct, with
reference to Senator McCarthy ?
General LAW"rox'. I could not.
Mr. DE FuRiA. If you were asked, and if you were permitted to
answer, could you give a conclusion or personal impression about Gen-
eral Zwicker's reference to Senator McCarthy ?
General Lawtox. I could.
Mr. DE FuRiA. That is all the questions we have, Mr. Chairman.
436 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. WiixiA]\ES. Would you read the last question, Mr. de Furia,
or would you restate it? I must have misunderstood it.
Mr. DE Furia. As I understood it, Mr. Williams, this witness could
only give us conclusions, which is incompetent in any judicial pro-
cedure or court of law. He states he cannot remember any of the
words used by General Zwicker, and we wantetl to make the point
clear that he has not been gagged by any order of the Army or the
President or anyone else; he just does not have any legal evidence
which he frankly told us that he could give here or elsewhere.
Mr. Williams. Well, I am glad you have said tliat, because I think
now we have reached the milk of the coconut, Mr. de Furia. I do say
this witness is being gagged by an Army order. I tliink it is per-
fectly clear.
The Chairman. Wait and let us see if he is.
Mr. Williams. From tliis letter of September 10, 1954 — I have just
been handed a copy of it today — I have read it over and T am frank
to say to you that I don't understand its reading. In the letter,
General Lawton is told that the order of May IT, 1954, which at the
time it was issued applied only to the Army-McCarthy hearings, is
made applicable to him in this hearing. That was the thing upon
whicli we drew issue Avhen he came here last.
I stated 1 couldn't understand how he could be bound by this order,
or how anyone could have given him competent evidence in good
faith that he was bound by this order, since this order obviously and
manifestly applied only to the Army-McCarthy hearings.
Now, Mr. de Furia has called him back here, and he now has in
his hands a letter telling him that he is bound by this order, and
that he may not testify to any of the things within the purview of
this order of Mav 17, 1954.
Now, if this order simply states principles of general legal appli-
cation, as the Secretary says in his letter of September 10, 1954, then
there was absolutely no reason to issue it specifically for the Army-
McCarthy hearings. So there must have been a reason to issue it
at tliat time.
Now, we find first of all that General Lawton comes here, and we
find that he had advice that he could not testify because this order
was applicable. AAHien it became manifestly absurd to hold that con-
tention— and no lawyer who reads the order could believe that this
particular order was applicable — then he was excused because we
would not force him to testify in the teeth of Army regulation when
he is living as a retired general.
Now he comes back here, but there is now in his hands a letter
from the Secretary not giving him just a legal opinion that the order
is a])plicable, but making it applicable to this proceeding. So that
I don't know, I would like to ask him the question, but I am afraid
I cannot get the answer.
The Chairman. As I understand it now, from what you have said,
General, that you are willing to testify in this proceeding as to any-
thing General Zwicker may have said at that conversation with respect
to Senator McCarthy — that is, providing you could remember the spe-
cific statements. You are not objecting now to testifying about what
he said about Senator jNIcCarthy, are you ?
General Lawtox. I am not.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 437
The CiiAiR^EAX. You are willing to go as far as you can within
the range of your memory ?
General Lawtox. That's right.
The Chairmax. That is what you asked for the other day, so you
may proceed with your question.
Mr. WILLIA3IS. 'All right, General, on December 1953, as I under-
stand it, you had a conversation, sir, with General Zwicker at Camp
Kilmer.
(xeneral Lawton. That's correct.
;Mr. Williams. And that conversation took place, as I understand
it, in General Zwicker's office.
General Lawtox. Correct.
Mr. WiLLiA3is. Would you tell the committee what the substance
of that conversation wasf I understand from Mr. de Furia's ques-
tion that you cannot give the exact quotes but can you tell us the sub-
stance of the conversation ?
The Chairmax. This is with respect to Senator McCarthy.
General Lawtox. The conversation with respect to Senator McCar-
thy revolved around a classified, a classified subject or classified sub-
jects, classified conversations. Therefore, I cannot tell you the dis-
cussion between General Zwicker and myself on this classified matter.
Mr. Williams. General, is it your opinion, as the result of the
advice you received from counsel, that you cannot segregate what you
regard as classified from that which you regard as unclassified?
General Lawton. No, I can segregate it.
]Mr. "Willia:ms. Will you tell us the substance of the conversation
that you had with General Zwicker on the subject of Senator
McCarthy ?
General La WTOX. It was all classified.
Mr. Williams. General, you came a long way back for nothing;
didn't you. ? .
General Lawtox^. That's right.
Mr. Williams. You came back from New Jersey last night ?
General Lawtox. That's right.
The Chairmax. Let's see.
The committee is very much interested in getting this information.
Let's see if he came a long way back for nothing.
Does counsel wish to give his name, please?
Mr. Perxice. My name is John Fernice.
May I say just a word to explain that last statement of th«
General's ?
The Chairmax. Without objection.
Mr. Perxice. I believe the General is of the opinion that it has been
held that liis inferences and conclusions from the conversation are
barred by this committee, by the chairman. Therefore, his answer is
not as roujidabout as it would appear.
In other words, he feels that some portions of the conversation did
relate to national security and therefore are barred. Other portions
of the conversation he cannot recall the specific words and he is of the
thought right now that this committee does not want to hear his con-
clusions and opinions. He is prepared to give his conclusions and/or
his opinions if the committee desires to hear it.
438 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The Chairman. Well, the committee is interested in gettino; infor-
mation, if he has any, about any remark that General Zwicker may
have made which was derogatory or critical of Senator McCarthy.
Do I make myself clear ?
General Lawton. Absolutely, but you are the first one that has
asked the question, with all due respect.
(Laughter.)
The Chairman. All right, if you can give us the exact words and
not what was said about Senator McCarthy, by General Zwicker, or if
you can't give the exact words, if you can give the substance of it,
we want to learn that. We want you to tell us.
General Lawton. I was there for about an half-hour. This was at
the time indicated. Tt was a long time ago. It was a courtesy call,
and I honestly cannot tell you one quote that General Zwicker said for
or against Senator McCarthy as a result of this conversation.
However, I did form an impression from what was said, and I have
made an opinion.
The Chairman, Now, I am going to rule on this now, and I am
going to be liberal in this ruling.
Will you give us that impression?
(At this point General Lawton conferred with Mr. Pernice).
General Lawton. My impression as a result of this discussion was
that General Zwicker was antagonistic toward Senator McCarthy,
The Chairman. But you cannot give us any of the language on
which you base that conclusion ?
General Lawton. Mot one quote.
The Chairman. You may take the witness.
Mr. DE FuRiA. We have no questions, sir.
Mr. Williams. I may take the witness ?
The Chairman. Yes,
Mr, Williams, Now, General, in this conversation wliich you have
admitted having, you said, in response to one of the questions from
the Chair, or Mr. de Furia, that you remembered what you said;
is that right?
General Laavton. That's right.
Mr. Williams. What did you say ?
General Lawton. W^hat was said about Senator McCarthy was
classified.
The Chairman. And, as a matter of fact, it would not be im-
portant, what he said
Mr. Williams. Wait a minute.
I object to this. I want to go right in now, if it is going to be-
characterized. If it is going to be characterized, I think we should
have this in.
The Chairman. Have what in ?
He has given everything he remembered.
Mr. Williams. I understood the Chair said it wouldn't be im-
portant.
The Chairman. No, I did not say
Mr. Williams. I think it would be awfully important.
The Chairman. Would you let me finish my statement?
Mr. W^iLLiAMS. I am sorry.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 439
The Chairman. I say it is not so important — let me qualify it
that way — it is not so important, what he said to General Zwicker,
as it is what General Zwicker said, and he has given his impression.
I have stretched the rules to the very limit.
Now, I think it is only fair to Senator McCarthy that we do that.
Mr. Williams. Can you tell us, General, what General Zwicker
said in that conversation?
General Lawton. No, I can't honestly repeat that.
Mr. Williams. You can't tell us?
General Lawton. If you are asking why I formed this impression,
T don't remember the quote. I can give you
Mr. Williams. We are not asking you for quotes. I know that no
man can remember a conversation a year ago in quotes, unless there
is some reason why it should make a very vivid impression on his
mind, and I assume this wasn't that kind of conversation. So, I am
not asking you to give us quotes. So don't say, "No, I won't give
it to you because I can't remember quotes."
I am asking you, sir, if j'ou will tell us what the substance of the
remarks were.
The Chairman. That is about Senator McCarthy.
General Lawton. Wait a minute.
(At this point General Lawton conferred with Mr. Pernice.)
General Lawton. ]Maybe I can give you this answer indirectly.
I had been before the McCarthy committee hearings under oath
twice. I had been, by invitation, attending five other times when
the employees of Fort Monmouth were there on interrogation. These
were closed sessions.
In this discussion, feeling this antagonism that I felt from General
Zwicker, I tried to explain — I did explain — to him, and tried to con-
vince him that what I had seen and heard myself as a result of these
7 days or nights, or combinations, that I didn't think the attitude
was proper.
Mr. Williams. What attitude?
General Lawton. The attitude of being antagonistic against the
Senator, McCarthy.
Mr. Williams. Did you tell him these things after he had expressed
his antagonism toward Senator McCarthy ? .
General Lawton. No. I wouldn't say there was any before or after.
I would say after I had left his office that was the impression I had as
a result of our conversation.
Mr. Williams. This was 3 months before General Zwicker's appear-
ance on the stand in New York ; is that right?
General Lawton. December, January — yes ; he was there about — I
don't know — February — that's about right ; 3 months.
The Chairman. Three weeks or months ?
General Lawton. Three months.
Mr. Williams. Did you tell General Zwicker in that conversation
that you had with him about your experience with security risks inso-
far as the Pentagon was concerned before the investigation of the
subcommittee ?
General Lawton. Wait a minute. These — the subcommittee — of
who ? Me, Fort Monmouth, or-
Mr. Williams. Fort Monmouth.
General Lawton. Now, I am confused. Say that over.
440 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. I say : Did you tell General Zwicker your experi-
ence in dealing- witli security risks at Fort Monmouth insofar as tlie
Pentagon was concerned before the subcommittee conducted the in-
vestigation at Fort Monmouth ?
General Lawton. No. This Avas subsequent.
INIr. Williams. In the conversation, General, that you had with
General Zwicker, did you tell him in December of 1953 about the ex-
}:)erience that you had had in dealing with security risks at Fort
Monmouth before the subcommittee conducted its investigation at
Alonmouth ?
Did you discuss that with him ?
(At this point, General LaAvton conferred with Mr. Pernice.)
General Lawton. I discussed with General Zwicker security prob-
lems at Fort Monmouth — period.
Mr. Williams. Did 3^ou discuss them in relationship to the Mc-
Carthy committee ?
General Lawton. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. And did you tell him that this was the first luck
that you had had in getting rid of the security risks that had been
around there a number of years, that prior to that time there had been
no action by the Pentagon?
The Chairman. The witness is shaking his head.
Will you make an audible answer ?
General Lawton. Yes, I will, when I figure out what I should say,
but this is getting in this ground now — I am going to cut the line on
you. I already said under oath once at another time.
Mr. Williams. What did you say under oath ?
The Chairman. Just a moment.
General Law^ton. No. That is classified.
The Chairman. I was
Mr. Williams. How did you say it before that was classified?
General Lawton. It was before the Senator's classified executive
hearing, which he has not yet released ; probably never will.
Mr. Williams. Will you testify to us in executive session ?
General Lawton. I will to the Senator here, I think, if he wants to
satisfy me it is a classified hearing. I might have to go back to the
Pentagon and get a ruling on it.
The Chairman. AVell, as I understand, the matter is directed more
to me, I take it, from what the witness just said. As I understand the
order, or I mean the letter, of Secretary Wilson, you were directed
to give any infornuition that woukl not deal strictly with classified or
security matters, and this matter of what General Zwicker said about
McCarthy, personally, his activities, would not be classified. As I
understand it, they would not be classified. You wovdd be permitted
to tell what you know about that.
General Lawton. I have.
The Chairman. And you have?
General Lawton. I have, yes, sir.
The Chairman. Well, that is as far as I can go.
Mr. Pernice. Mr. Chairman, may I have another word? I realize
I am imposing on this committee, but this witness is in a little bit of
a box, in that he is trying to answer as many questions as possible,
and there will come a point, though, at which he must stop and take
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 441
notice of the fact that the question, the last question asked, will bring
him into the area of divulging national security information, which
he will not do ; and it is because of that that a little bit of embarrass-
ment may arise along the way.
He is going to answer as many questions as he possibly can and
bring it right up to the line ; but when it gets to the line, he is going
to stop.
General La w^TON. May I go on further?
There is a security regulation— not part of this directive, but a
routine directive— that we will not give the number of security cases.
This means employees. We will not give the status of the case.
Now, the cases run through eight different headquarters before
they come to their completion. He is asking me if I had trouble with
the Pentagon. Now, that is one of the offices through which the cases
go, and it shows the status of the case, and therefore, because of these
regulations I must not show the status or the action taken in the im-
mediate offices, I have to, from that regulation, decline to answer his
question : Was I having trouble, first, with the Army at Governors
Island, my boss, the chiel' signal officer, or other places at the Pentagon ?
I cannot reply to that because of that.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Williams. I am not asking you whether you were having
trouble somewhere.
The Chairman. That is not pertinent to this hearing, anyway,
whether you were liaving trouble.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Williams. I am asking you what you told General Zwicker.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman.
General Lawton. What I told General Zwicker Avoukl be telling the
status of some of these cases, and a lot of other. things that I am pro-
hibited from discussing.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Senator Ervin
The Chairman. Just a moment. Senator Ervin has asked for rec-
ognition.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, I just want to raise the point of
what we are trying here is merely the question of what was the atti-
tude of General Zwicker toward Senator McCarthy in connection with
the hearing he had. We have no power, under the resolution or the
motion to go into these other matters, and what General Lawton may
have said to General Zwicker about^other matters would be imma-
terial.
Mr. Williams. Do you regard, General, the things that you told
me in relationship to that conversation as being within the order since
last Monday ?
General Lawton. Since that applied — this order which I thought
was specifically for the Senator Mundt committee, and not only inter-
preted to be this — then I was out of order in telling you what I did.
Mr. WiLLL\MS. So all you can tell us is that as a result of this con-
versation you came away feeling that Zwicker was hostile to Senator
McCarthy.
General Lawton. I used the word "antagonistic." You could use
several others.
Mr. W1L1.1AMS. How long did this conversation last? Half an
hour ?
442 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
General Lawton. Oh, half an hour; half of Avhich was spent on
security cases and Senator McCarthy's committee.
Mr. Williams. Without getting into the actual cases that you dis-
cussed, which I have no desire to do, did your conversation turn around
the work of the McCarthy committee, at Fort Monmouth, in getting
rid of security risks ?
General Lawton. It did by me ; yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. Did you tell this to General Zwicker, tell about this
w^ork ?
General Lawton. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. When you finished telling about this Avork, was
Zwicker's attitude the same as it had been, as you termed it, antago-
nistic?
General Lawton. I previously said, and I don't think that I
formed any particular opinion at any particular moment. I am
willing to say that when I did leave that I got the impression from
the conversation back and forth that he was antagonistic.
Mr. Williams. And that was the impression that you had, and
pointed out what conversation ?
General Lawton. Not necessarily. I don't know where to begin to
pick up.
Mr. Williams. At the end ; is that right ?
General Lawton. I am sure of it at the end.
Obviously, it had to pick up somewhere during the conversation.
Mr. Williams. I think that is all. That is all I can ask him within
the Army
The Chairman. Is that all you had ?
Senator Case, did you have a question?
Mr. Williams. Excuse me, if I may finish, sir.
The Chairman. I beg your pardon.
Mr. Williams. That is all that I may ask, as I understand, within
the Army counsel who has accompanied General Lawton's interpre-
tation of this order, and that is wdiy I am desisting from any further
examination.
Senator Case. General Lawton, I think you have given some testi-
mony here that may be helpful to the committee this afternoon.
In order that we be perfectly clear, I want to ask you one question :
Did I correctly understand you to say that the number and status
of security suspects in a defense installation is classified information?
General Lawton. Yes, sir: and may I add to that that if it is re-
quested by a body of Congress, you then put your request into writing
and we will take it to the Secretary of the Army, who will make such
reply as he deems appropriate to your questions.
But we within the Army or at a lower level than the Secretary,
himself, cannot divulge that information.
Senator Case. Thank you. That is all.
The Chairman. Thank you. General ; you are excused.
General Lawton. You mean momentarily?
The Chairman. Did you ask momentarily, or do you mean perma-
nently ?
General Lawton. Permanently; yes, sir.
The Chairman. That depends on wdiat develops.
Let me ask Senator McCarthy and his counsel :
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 443
Do you expect to use the General any further ?
Mr. Williams, Only if the Army changes its order again.
The Chairman. Well, they will have to go pretty quickly because
we hope to end this hearing Monday.
You are excused.
Thank you, General.
The Chairman. The committee will call Mr. Roy Cohn.
Do you solemnly swear tliat the testimony you will give in the matter
now pending before the committee, will be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Cohn. I do.
TESTIMONY OF KOY COHN
Mr. DE FuRiA. Will you state your name, please?
Mr. Cohn. Roy Cohn,
Mr. DE FuRiA. What is your address, Mr. Cohn ?
Mr. Cohn. 1165 Park Avenue, New York City.
Mr. DE FuRiA. At one time, I believe you were chief counsel for the
committee of Senator McCarthy, the Permanent Subcommittee on In-
vestigation ; is that right, sir ?
Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. You served in that capacity, did you not, Mr. Cohn,
during the Army-McCarthy hearings?
Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Do you remember Senator McCarthy, in the course
of this hearing to which I have just referred, the Army-McCarthy
hearing, presenting a 2i/4-page paper?
Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. By that general description, I take it you know what
we are talking about ; is that right, sir ?
Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.
Mr, DE FuRiA, When did you first see that paper, Mr. Cohn?
Mr. Cohn. I don't recall.
Mr. DE FuRiA. About how long before the day on which Senator
McCarthy presented it?
Mr. Cohn. I don't recall that, Mr. de Furia. I know I was famil-
iar with its contents. Whether I had actually seen the paper first,
I probably had, but I have no specific recollection of it.
I knew generally what was in it. I know about the whole situation.
Mr. DE Furia. Was it in your possession, or Senator McCarthy's
possession prior to the presentation of that paper during the course
of those hearings?
Mr. Cohn. I believe it was in Senator McCarthy's possession.
Mr. DE Furia. Had you any copies of it made before Senator Mc-
Carthy presented it at the hearings ?
Mr. Cohn. I don't believe so, sir.
Mr. DE Furia. Can you give us a better statement that that, sir,
that you don't believe so?
Mr. Cohn. No; I am reasonably sure that I did not. I have no
specific recollection of this document, Mr. de Furia, before it came into
the Mundt committee hearings.
I knew what was in it, and I knew about the general Fort Mon-
mouth situation, but no particular importance was attached to the
52461—54—29
444 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
fact that some of the information happened to be in this one piece of
paper.
Mr. DE FuRiA. My question is whether you had had any copies made
before Senator McCarthy presented it at this hearinf^.
Mr. CoHN. As I told you once before, sir, I don't believe that I
did.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you have any copies made after Senator
McCarthy mentioned and presented that paper in the Army -McCarthy
hearincTS ?
Mr. CoHN. I believe so.
Mr. DE FuRiA. How many copies did you have made?
Mr. CoHN. I don't know. I remember that Mr. Bob Collier of the
Mundt committee staff telephoned up to Senator McCarthy's office.
He asked for the Senator and the Senator was tied up and I talked to
him.
He told me that he wanted us to have — first, he asked for the docu-
ment and then said could he have a copy made or a couple of copies
made, and I think he had an appointment to take one over to the
Justice Department and he had something to do with the other one.
I spoke to the Senator and he said that is all right; and I then
caused somebody in the Senator's office to make a copy, or two copies,
or whatever it was, of this particular document.
Then I left and, I believe, after that Mr. Collier came up and called
for whatever he had ordered.
Mr. DE FuEiA. Were any copies made for the press?
Mr. CoHN. For the press ?
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes.
Mr. CoHN. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Was a copy made for Mr. Winchell ?
Mr. CoHN. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Do you know whether any member of the staff of
Senator McCarthy made copies for the press or for Mr. Winchell ?
Mr. CoHN. No.
The Chairman. The answer is you don't know.
Mr. CoHN". I don't know, sir.
Mr. DE Ftjeia. That is all the questions we have, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I would like to ask one question.
Did you make a copy of that document, give one to Mr. Winchell?
Mr. CoHN. No.
The Chairman. You did not give a copy to Mr. Winchell?
Mr. Cohn. No.
The Chairman. You may examine the witness, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Cohn, you said you saw this document in ques-
tion which now the committee has seen and which Senator McCarthy
has seen and which I have seen and which Mr. Ray Jenkins has seen.
I want to ask you what your opinion was when you saw this with
respect to whether or not it was a classified document.
Tlie Chairman. Just a moment. That is outside the scope of the
direct examination,
]\rr. Williams. I will make him my witness.
The Chairman. All right. It is the committee's witness, in any
event, because we do not recognize any distinction here. They all
come in here on the subpena of the committee and tliey are all com-
mittee witnesses.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 445
Mr. CoHN. May I answer that question?
The Chairman. You may answer it. You had better qualify him
first.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cohn, have you served in the executive branch of the Govern-
ment ?
Mr. CoHN. Yes, I did, for 6 years.
Mr. Williams. In what capacity did you serve?
Mr. CoHN. I was a law clerk in the office of the United States at-
torney for the Southern District of New York. I was assistant to
the United States district attorney. I was the confidential assistant
to the United States attorney, and' then I became the special assistant
to the Attorney General of the United States dealing with subversive
activities.
Mr. AVilliams. While you served as an assistant United States
attorney in the soutliern district of New York, and while you served
as a special assistant in the prosecution of subversive cases, did you
have occasion to handle documents of a classified nature ?
Mr. CoHN. Frequently.
Mr. Williams. Would you tell us in a very brief way what experi-
ence you had ?
Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman, may I intervene here?
The Chairman. Senator Stennis.
Senator Stennis. With your permission, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Senator Stennis. Do I understand that this gentleman is to be
permitted to give the committee his opinion as to whether or not this
document or tlve contents of it was classified or contained classified
material? Is that the proposal here?
Mr. Williams. The proposal is, Senator, to show through this wit-
ness what his experience in dealing with this material is.
Senator Stennis. I know that is the specific question. I catch
that clearly.
Mr. Williams. And how
Senator Stennis. Do you propose to ask him his opinion then as
to whether or not this was a classified document or whether or not
it contained classified material?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir, I intend to ask him ■
Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman, may I say this, just as one member
of the committee : I think and I feel compelled to say this now, that
certainly this committee should not — it makes no difference who put
this witness on — certainly this is not a place that we should go to
get opinions about whether or not this is classified material. I don't
care to go into an extended statement on that, or an argument.
The Chairman. Your question is on the competency of this witness ?
Senator Stennis. Yes, sir. I judge that is what he was leading up
to, and I don't want to go into that from this witness.
Mr. Williams. Senator Stennis, it would be most helpful to the
connnittee if they heard from someone who has had experience with
the marking of classified documents, classifying them. I was not
going to call Mr. Cohn to evaluate it, to give us his evaluation of what
was contained in the document, but I thought it would be most helpful
to the committee if he told us the way — —
446 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Senator Stennis. Any light on the marking would be helf>fiil.
Mr. Williams. That is what I was going to say.
The Chairman. If you will limit it to that, the Chair will wrmit
you to ansMer.
Mr. CoHN. Based on answering Mr. Williams, and based on my
extended experience Avitli FBI documents, it was my opinion and it is
my opinion that this document was not classified,' and I so advised
Senator McCarrhy. It did not bear a stamp classification of restricted,,
confidential, secret, or top secret. It merely bore a typewritten nota-
tion of ^'Personal and Confidential" which is the same as I have used
on a number of letters and which I have seen on a number of letters
which I have received from people in the executive branch when I was
there, and since I have left there, and I did not regard that as having
any official significance or connotation and I do not now.
There is an official, formal way of classifying documents. It has
invariably, to mv experience, been done with a rubber stamp bearing
the word ^'Restricted,'" "Confidential," "Secret," or "Top Secret" and
I have seen FBI documents stamped ^vith whatever classification they
may have and the words "Security Information" after it, usually with
red stamps.
This letter, I advised Senator McCarthy, on looking at it, was not,
to my experience, a classified document.
Mr. Williams. Had you, while you were assistant United States
attorney in New York, and while you were special assistant to the
Attorney General in Washington, received FBI letters marked per-
sonal and confidential ?
Mr. CoiiN. I believe I had. I am not sure if it w^as personal and
confidential or some were just personal and some just confidential,
but I did receive, I am reasonably certain, letters and memoranda
bearing those words and I did not regard them as classified unless
they had the appropriate rubber marking on them.
Mr. WiLLiA]MS. Now, do you recall, while you were serving as
counsel on the Permanent Investing Committee, whether or not the
case of Aaron Coleman had been heard in open session?
Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. I noticed this morning Mr. de Furia had
mentioned that the name. Senator McCarthy mentioned the name,
Aaron Coleman, as appearing in this document. There had been a
suggestion, I believe, by Mr. de Furia, that by being in the document
that name was confidential, but the fact is that some months before
this document came up in the Mundt committee hearings, Aaron
Coleman's name had been very much revealed and he had been called
as a witness in both executive session and open session in this very
room before this committee.
As a matter of fact, his name had been mentioned in the trial record
of the Rosenberg case 2 or 3 years ago.
Mr. Williams. Had there been publicity incident to the open
session on him ?
Mr. CoiiN. Very wide publicity.
Mr. Williams. That's all.
The Chairman. Are there any questions?
If not, you are excused.
Senator Ervin. I would like to ask one.
The Chairman. Senator Ervin.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 447
Senator Ervin. Mr. Colin, I ask you if in fact the act of Congress
does not define what classified information is ?
Mr. CoHN. I think it does, Senator Ervin.
I think that classification to me has always been, as you suggest,
sir, a technical matter.
Senator Ervin. In other words, does not the act of Congress pro-
vide in substance that any information is classified information if it
is designated and marked by an agency of the Government as being
information not intended for general dissemination ?
Mr. CoHN. My understanding of it, sir, was this, that classification
is a technical field; that there is a technical terminology for it. That
is why I say, when I see the words "personal and confidential," that
means nothing.
Senator Ervin. When you see a document marked "personal and
confidential"
Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Does that not mean to you that it is not intended
for general dissemination ?
Mr. CoiiN. It might mean to me, sir, that the person w^ho wrote the
letter did not want the thing shown around in various ways or possibly
to certain people, but classification to me as an officer in the executive
branch, and then later in the legislative, always had a technical sig-
nificance : Either restricted, confidential, secret, or top secret were the
four categories of classification. If a document was to have the legal
significance of classification in one of those categories, there was
usually a stamp, invariably in my experience, a stamp on each of
those documents bearing one of those words in a stamped form ; and
I never regarded a mere typewritten statement which I myself have
put on a number of letters as creating a classification of legal
significance.
The Chairman. Anything further?
Is there a (luestion by an}' member of the committee ?
If not, you are excused.
Mr. CoHN. Thank you very much for taking me out of order, Mr.
Chairman. I appreciate it.
The Chairman. The other witnesses whose names were read and
who have been subpenaed will be required to appear here Monday
morning at 10 o'clock.
Will the audience remain seated until this committee has actually
recessed ?
At this stage, the committee will recess now until next Monday
morning at 10 o'clock.
(Thereu]ion, at 3 : 40 p. m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene
at 10 a. m., Monday, September 13, 1954.)
HEARINGS ON SENATE EESOLUTION 301
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1954
United States Senate,
Select Committee to Study Censure Charges
Pursuant to Senate Order on Senate Kesolution 301,
Washington, D. C.
The select committee met, piirsnant to recess, at 10 : 07 a. m., in the
■caucus room, 318 Senate Office Building, Senator Arthur V. Watkins
(chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Watkins (chairman), Johnson (vice chairman) ,
Carlson, Case, Stennis, and Ervin.
Also present: Senator McCarthy; E. Wallace Chadwick, counsel
to the committee ; Guy G. de Furia, assistant counsel to the committee ;
John M. Jex, clerk of the committee ; John W. Wellman, staff mem-
ber; Frank Ginsburg and Ray R. McGuire, members of Senator
Watkins' staff on loan to the committee; and Edward Bennett
Williams, counsel to Senator McCarthy, with his associates, Agnes A.
Neill and Brent Bozell.
The Chairman. The committee will be in session.
Mr. de Furia, will you call the next witness?.
Mr. de Furia. Mr. Chairman, we desire to call Capt. William J.
Woodward, sir.
The Chairman. Captain Woodward, will you come forward?
Will you raise your right hand and be sworn ?
Do you solemnly swear the testimony given in the matter now
pending before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Captain Woodward. I do.
TESTIMONY Or CAPT. WILLIAM JOHN WOODWARD
Mr. DE Furia. Captain, let us have your full name and address,
please.
Captain Woodward. Capt. William John Woodward, Quarters 5,
Fort Hancock.
Mr. DE Furia. W^here are you stationed. Captain?
Captain Woodw^ard. I am stationed at the present time at Fort
Monmouth, N. J.
Mr. DE Furia. Do you know General Z wicker ?
Captain Woodward. I do know General Zwicker.
Mr. DE Furia. How long have you known General Zwicker?
Captain Woodward. Since the day of the hearing, February 18,
1954.
449
450 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. DE FtTRiA. The hearinfr to which you are referrino;, Cai)taiii,
I take it, is the hearins: at which General Zwicker was examined by
Senator McCarthy in New York ?
Captain Woodward. That is the date.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did yon ^o to that hearing with General Zwicker?
Captain Woodward. I did go to the hearing with General Zwicker.
Mr. DE Ffria. Was that from Camp Kilmer to New York City?
Captain Woodward. It was from Camp Kilmer to New York City.
Mr. DE Furia. What was the state of General Zwicker's health that
morning?
Excuse me. You are a medical officer; is that correct, sir?
Captain Woodw^ard. That's right, sir.
Mr. DE Furia. Did you examine General Zwicker before he left
for New York?
Captain Woodward. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE Furia. What w^as the state of the General's health that
morning ?
Captain Woodward. Quite w-ell, sir.
Mr. DE Furia. He was well. What time did you reach the hearing
room in New York?
Captain Woodward. We got there shortly before the morning ses-
sion bsgan. I think w^e had about 10 minutes to spare.
Mr. DE Furia. And that was about what time ?
Captain Woodward. I would say about 9 : 50.
Mr. DE Furia. A. m. ?
Captain Woodward. A. m.
Mr. DE Furia. And stayed there until when ?
Captain Woodward. We stayed there until, I think, about 6 p. m.
Mr. DE Furia, Were you in the company of General Zwicker dur-
ing that entire period, Captain?
Captain Woodward. No, sir, I wasn't. In the morning session I
sat approximately 12 rows in front of the general. During the re-
mainder of the day I was at his side.
Mr. DE Furia. When he testified in the afternoon session, then, I
take it you were sitting beside General Zwicker ; is that correct, sir ?
Captain Woodward. I was sitting with General Zwicker.
Mr. DE Furia. Now, during the course of the testimony, when Gen-
eral Zwicker was under examination by Senator McCarthy, did you
hear any mention of the words "fifth amendment"?
Captain Woodward. With reference to General Zwicker, sir?
It was mentioned a number of times, mostly concerning the Com-
munist, Peress.
Mr. DE Furia. Yes.
Captain Woodward. On one occasion it was referred to, I feel, the
general.
Mr. DE Furia. What
Mr. Williams. Just a minute.
Mr. Chairman, if Mr. de Furia is undertaking to examine this
witness as to what was said durinjj the examination of General Zwicker
by the committee, I think that this interrogation is improper, because
the best evidence of wdiat was said during the examination is the offi-
cial record that is already in evidence here.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 451
So, I object to going into this when we have the official record
here of exactly what was said by Senator McCarthy, the other exam-
iners, and General Zwicker.
Mr. DE FuKiA. Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. I will hear from the committee counsel as to his
objective and what he intends to show.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Chairman, I desire to ask the witness concerning
an aside by Senator McCarthy, which was not taken down by the
reporter.
The Chairman. You may answer.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Will you tell us, please, Captain, what was the
remark about fifth amendment and General Zwicker, who made it,
and the exact words, if you can give them to us?
Captain Woodward. Sir, I remember that very, very correctly.
The statement
Mr. DE FuRiA. Who made the statement?
Captain Woodward. The statement was made by Senator Mc-
Carthy. It was made rather early in the hearing while he was
questioning General Zwicker. At the time General Zwicker was
pausing to get an answer for a question Senator McCarthy looked at
his colleagues and, laughingly, said, "This is the first fifth-amendment
general we've had before us."
Mr. DE FuRiA. At the close of the hearing do you recall that Gen-
eral Zwicker was asked to step down from the witness stand?
Captain Woodward. Yes, sir; I recall that.
The Chairman. Would you lean a little closer to the microphone?
It is difficult to hear you at all times.
Captain Woodward. Sorry.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Will you please tell us, sir, what happened after
General Zwicker was asked to step down from the witness stand?
Captain Woodward. General Zwicker, when he was asked to step
down from the witness stand, was told by Senator McCarthy — I
think he shook his finger at him — "General, you will be back on
Tuesday, and at that time I am going to put you on display and let
the American public see what kind of officers we have."
Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Chairman, they were all the questions the com-
mittee counsel desires to ask, sir.
The Chairman. You may cross-examine.
Mr. Williams. I have only one ^question, I believe, of Captain
Woodward.
Captain, you made reference to Senator McCarthy's using the
term "fifth amendment" in some colloquy he had during the ex-
amination of General Zwicker; is that right?
Captain Woodward. The one that I mentioned directly referred
to General Zwicker.
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Is that the only time you heard the fifth amendment referred to in
relationship to General Zwicker?
Captain Woodward. That was the only time I heard General
Zwicker referred to as a fifth-amendment general, sir.
Mr. Williams. Is that the only time, Captain, that you heard the
fifth amendment referred to in relationship to General Zwicker?
Captain Woodward. As far as a personal relationship with Gen-
eral Zwicker, yes.
452 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. Yes.
And you heard all the testimony that morning '{
Captain Woodward. I did.
]\Ir. Williams. You listened to it attentively, I presume?
Captain Woodward. As well as I could under the circumstances.
I was pretty upset with the whole thing.
Mr. Williams. Now, I call the attention of the Chair to the fact
that the colloquy at page 153 of the written record makes reference
to this reference of fifth amendment, and I will read to tlie Chair
The Chairman. 'N'N^iat is the purpose of reading it to the Chair?
Is there an objection or do you want to do something about it?
Mr. Williams. I want to point out to the Chair that there was a
reference in the record to this.
I will desist if the Chair doesn't want to hear it.
The Chairman. I didn't say I didn't want to hear it.
Mr. Williams. I have no further questions of this Avitness.
The Chairman. I want to know why.
Mr. Williams. Because he has said, Mr. Chairman, that he listened
very attentively during this examination and he heard all the ques-
tions and answers propounded. He said that only once did he hear,
as I understood his testimony just now, a reference to the fifth amend-
ment in reference to General Zwicker, and I say that appears of
record. So the record is the best evidence as to what was said on
that occasion and not Captain Woodward's memory 8 months later.
The Chairman. The ruling has already been made under objection
to the first testimony and what you are doing now is arguing the
matter, which is not cross-examination. However, the record has been
made.
Do you have any further questions ?
Mr. Williams. No; I have no further questions. I simply wanted
to point out what he testified to is a matter of record and, therefore,
his testimony is irrelevant and incompetent.
The Chairman. The Chair will stand on the ruling made.
Do any members of the committee wish to ask any questions?
Incidentally, at this point, I should mention that Senator Carlson
had an appointment for a brief time this morning at the State Depart-
ment and will be back shortly.
Senator Case had to leave for home and will not be here today.
Both these members have been excused for the time mentioned.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, if there are no further questions
of this witness, may I say something, sir ?
Is he excused ?
The Chairman. Did I understand that there are no questions?
Mr. DE Furia. Yes.
The Chairman. You are excused.
Mr. Williams. I had intended, Mr. Chairman, to call this to your
attention before we got under way this morning, but I didn't get a
chance before the captain began testifying and I could speak.
Yesterday, sir, I reviewed the record somewhat extensively and I
think it is rather apparent that there is quite a bit of confusion in the
record with respect to this security classification of that two-and-a-
quarter page document, and I hasten to say that I accept my full re-
sponsibility for any part of that confusion that I have generated.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 453
But I do think it is awfully important for us this morning just to
take a minute and I would like to do that, if I may, to point out just
two things.
The Chairman. I will say, Mr. Williams, a little later we will prob-
ably have a witness who will be testifying to marking on documents
of that kind, and probably at that time it would be appropriate to go
into it.
Mr. Williams. There will be a witness?
The Chairman. There will be a witness; we anticipate one. If
there is not, you call it up again before we close the hearing and you
will have full opportunity.
Mr. Williams. Very well.
The Chairman. Call your next witness.
Mr. DE FtJRiA. Mr. Chairman, we desire to call General Zwicker, sir.
TESTIMONY OF GEN. RALPH W. ZWICKER
The Chairman. Raise your right hand and be sworn.
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give in this matter
now pending before the committee, will be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
General Zwicker. I do.
The Chairman. You may examine.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Colonel Johnson, may we have for the record your
name, address, sir, rank, and official position?
Colonel Johnson. Lt. Col. Edward T. Johnson, Judge Advocate
General's Corps, acting as personal counsel for General Zwicker dur-
ing his testimony before this hearing.
The Chairman. The record may show that Colonel Johnson has
taken the chair next to the witness and will be acting in the capacity
mentioned by him.
Mr. DE FuRiA. General Zwicker, may we have your full name and
address, sir?
General Zwicker. Ralph W. Zwicker.
Mr. DE FuRiA. General, we have in the record a statement of your
rank and record, so I will not go into those matters now, sir.
General, did you, as commandant of Camp Kilmer, receive a separa-
tion order with reference to a man named Peress ?
General Zw^icker. I did.
Mr. DE FuRiA. When did you receive that order, sir?
General Zwicker. On January 23, 1954.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Do you have a copy of it here, sir ?
General Zwicker. I do.
Mr. DE FuRiA. May I ask Mr. Williams, Mr, Chairman, whether he
has a copy of it?
Mr. Williams. I do not have a copy.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Would you like to see one ?
Mr. Williams. I would, sir.
The Chairman. Do you intend to interrogate him with respect to
the order?
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like the order to go
into the record, sir.
The Chairman. After it has been properly identified, then the
Chair can pass on the offer.
454 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. DE FuEiA. Colonel Johnson, are there any other copies of that
available, sir?
Colonel Johnson. I think I gave yon virtually all of the copies,
Mr. de Furia. I have one more here.
Mr. DE Furia. After the conclusion of the interrogation with refer-
ence to this, would you mind giving it to the reporter, sir, or if the
chairman desires to see it, sir
The Chairman. It has not been offered yet. I am not ready to take
it.
Mr. DE Furia. Is that a classified paper or document, General?
General Zwicker. It is not.
Mr. DE Furia. Are you at liberty to reveal its contents, sir ?
General Zwicker. I am.
Mr. DE Furia. Do you have an actual copy of the separation order
here from your files, is that correct, sir ?
General Zwicker. This is not from my file. This was furnished
by the Department of the Army, Adjutant General.
Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have that read into
evidence by the general, if I may, sir.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
General Zwicker (reading) :
RCM/E]VI/dtd/lD733a.
Suspense Date : 8 Feb 1954.
18 Jauuary 19.54.
AGPO-SO 201 Peress, Irving.
(11 Jau 1954)
Subject : Relief from Active Duty and Separation from the Service.
To : Commanding General,, First Army.
1. It is desired tliat Maj. Irving Peress, 01893643, DC, be relieved from active
duty and honorably discharged from the Army at the earliest practicable date
dei>ending on ollicer's desires, but in any event not later than 90 days from date
of receipt of this letter.
2. Individual or extract orders will be issued by direction of the President
citing section 4 (b), I'ublic Law 84, 83d Congress, as amended. Relief from
active duty and discharge will be effective upon expiration of authorized rail
travel time from place of separation to home of record. Orders directing issuance
of DI> Form 214 and DD form 256A will provide for payment of mileage and
lump-sum payment for unused leave.
3. Separati()n forms will be completed and forwarded via registered mail
to officer after his separation (SR 135-175-5).
4. All commissions held by him will be terminated on effective <late of dis-
charge and he will not be tendered a reappointment in the USAR except by
authority of the Department of the Army. Two copies of separation orders will
be furnished to the Adjutant General, Department of the Army, Attn : AGPO-SC
in addition to distribution required by SR 310-110-1 and SR 13.5-175-5.
5. Officer will not be separated prior to determination that he is physically
qualified for separation by your headquarters. A prompt report will be made
to this office in the event action cannot be taken without undue delay.
By order of the Secretary of the Army :
/s/ R. C. ^VIcDanibt.,
Adjutant General.
Copies for :
AMEDS Br-CMD
Res Br, Status Sec,
Rm 1C760, Pentagon
ACofS, G-1.
Mr. DE Furia. General, to recapitulate, that order is dated when?
General Zwicker. January 18, 1954.
Mr. DE Furia. Received by you when, sir?
General Zwicker. January 23, 1954.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 455
Mr. DE FuRiA. Can you tell us, General, when you communicated that
order to Major Peress?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. What date ?
General Zwicker. Early on the morning of January 24, 1954.
Mr. DE FuRiA. General, did you communicate that order to Senator
McCarthy or any member of his staff ?
General Zwicker. I did.
Mr. DE FuRiA. On what date, sir ?
General Zwicker. January 23, 1954.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Is that the date you received it ?
General Zwicker. It was.
Mr. DE FuRiA. To whom did you communicate the contents of that
order ?
General Zwicker. Mr. Anastos,
Mr. DE FuRiA. Is that George Anastos ?
General Zwicker. I do not know his first name, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Was that done personally, by wire, telephone, or how ?
General Zwicker. It was done by telephone at my own initiative.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you meet, after talking by telephone with Mr.
Anastos, Mr. Juliana, of Senator McCarthy's staff?
General Zwicker. I did.
Mr. DE FuRiA. On what date, sir ?
General Zwicker. On February 13, 1954.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Wliere?
General Zwicker. In my office at Camp Kilmer, N. J.
Mr. DE Furia. Did you discuss with Mr. Juliana that separation
order ?
General Zwicker. I did.
Mr. DE Furia. What happened ? What was the conversation, sir?
General Zwicker. I gave Mr. Juliana such information of an ad-
ministrative nature as I could relative to Major Peress. At the same
time, I indicated to him that because of the President's order, I was
not privileged to discuss much information relative to that same offi-
cer. I indicated to him that he was as well aware of this order as I,
to which he replied, "I understand."
At that same time, I took from my file a copy of the order which has
just been read into the record for the committee, and personally handed
it to Mr. Juliana.
Mr. DE Furia. When you reached New York, on February 18, 1954,
General, I understand that you were not on the stand in the morning
session. Is that right, sir ?
General Zwicker. That is right, sir.
Mr. DE Furia. But that Senator ]\IcCarthy did direct a question
or two to you, as you sat in the audience ; is that correct, sir ?
General Zwicker. He did.
Mr. DE Furia. Did you see a man named Harding there, seated
ahead of you ?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
Mr. DE Furia. Do you remember whether or not you made some
muttered or audible reference to Senator McCarthy, as you were seat-
ing yourself, after answering the Senator's inquiry ?
General Zwicker. I do not recall making any remarks.
456 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. DE FuRiA. This man, Harding, I believe stated that you said
something with reference to Senator McCarthy, including "S. O. B."
Have you any recollection of that, General ?
General Zwicker. Up until the time I heard that testimony given
in this room, I had had no recollection, nor any reason for making
any such a remark. After hearing the testimony given by Mr. Hard-
ing, I searched my memory very carefully; and, to this moment, I
have no recollection of having made any such remark.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Had there been any diiferences of opinion between
the Senator and you, up to that moment?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Had you talked to the Senator before he addressed
an inquiry to you, seated in the audience?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you see the Senator, after that time, and before
you were called to testify ?
General Zwicker. I did.
Mr. DE FuRiA. And when did you see him, sir ?
General Zwicker. I met the Senator in his office, which was adja-
cent to the hearing room, and chatted with him for a few moments
prior to the time the executive session started in the afternoon.
Mr. DE FuRiA. About what time was that, sir ?
General Zwicker. I would say it was about 1 : 30. I am not certain
of that hour.
Mr. DE FuRiA. What did you chat with the Senator about?
General Zwicker. I mentioned to Senator McCarthy that I was
happy to meet him, since I was from Wisconsin, myself; and I told
him that I had been the last cadet appointed by the senior "Bob" La
Follette to the Military Academy.
Mr. DE FuRiA. I take it, it was a friendly conversation, and not
about the Peress case, or anything else with which we are concerned ;
is that right?
General Zwicker. So far as I know, that is correct.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Now, we have had read into the transcript of these
hearings, General, what happened while you were under examination.
You made reference to certain Presidential and Army orders at that
time. Will you tell us what orders you refer to in your testimony,
and let us have copies, please?
General Zwicker. I referred to two orders; the first J|)eing the
separation order, which has just been read into the record; the second
being the Presidential order, and the changes thereto, as set forth in
certain Army regulations.
Mr. DE FuRiA. May we have the date and reference to the Presi-
dential order ?
General Zwicker. May I confer with counsel ?
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes.
General Zwicker. The first is paragraph 55, Army Regulations No.
380-10, Department of the Army, Washington 25, D. C, 23 November
1951.
It was an extract, under the heading "Military Security — Laws,
Executive Orders, etc., Pertaining to Safeguarding Military Infor-
mation."
Is it your desire that I read this paragraph, sir ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 457
Mr. DE FuRiA. Is it very long, General ?
General Zwicker. One page, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. I should like, Mr. Chairman, to have it read into
the record as we consider it of importance here.
Mr. Williams, May I have a copy of that?
Colonel Johnson. Which paragraph is that?
General Zwicker. Paragraph 55.
(Colonel Johnson produced certain copies, which he handed to
Mr. de Furia.)
Colonel Johnson. And here is the change [handing another docu-
ment to Mr. de Furia].
Mr. DE Furia. Will you please read that, General ?
General Zwicker. Paragraph 55 ?
Mr. DE Furia. Yes.
General Zwicker (reading) :
55. Presidential Directive of March 13, 1948
(Confidential Status of Employee Loyalty Records)
Mr. Williams. Excuse me. I asked for a copy of that. Do you
have an extra copy, please?
Mr. DE Furia. Colonel, do you have anotlier copy, please?
Colonel Johnson. Yes [producing the same].
The Chairman. I think counsel for Senator McCarthy will prob-
ably want to look at that report.
Mr. Williams. I have read it, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. You may continue.
General Zwicker. The Army regulation referred to reads as fol-
lows :
The efficient and just administration of the Employee Loyalty Program, under
Executive Order No. 9835 of March 21, 1947, requires that reports, records, and
files relative to the program be preserved in strict confidence. This is necessary
in the interest of our national security and welfare, to preserve the confidential
character and sources of information furnished, and to protect Government
personnel against the dissemination of unfounded or disproved allegations. It
is necessary also in order to insure the fair and just disposition of loyalty cases.
For these reasons, and in accordance vpith the long-established policy that
reports rendered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other investigative
agencies of the executive branch are to be regarded as confidential, all reports,
records, and files relative to the loyalty of employees or prospective employees
(including reports of such investigative agencies) shall be maintained in con-
fidence, and .shall not be transmitted or ^disclosed except as required in the
efficient conduct of business.
Any subpena or demand or request for information, reports, or files of the
nature described, received from sources other than those persons in the executive
branch of the Government who are entitled thereto by reason of their official
duties, .shall be respectfully declined, on the liasis of this directive, and the
subpena or demand or other request shall be referred to the Office of the Presi-
dent for such response as the President may determine to be in the public inter-
est in the particular case. There shall be no relaxation of the provisions of this
directive except with my express authority.
This directive shall be published in the Federal Register.
Harry S. Tritman.
The White House, March 13, 19. 'i8.
13 F. R. 1359.
Mr. DE Furia. And the addendum.
General Zwicker. I refer to Change No. 1 to Army Regulation
380-10, dated May 28, 1952.
458 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Is it your desire that I read this, sir ?
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes, please, sir. General.
General Zwicker (reading) : AR 880-10, C 1
MtLiTAET Security
LAWS, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, ETC., PERTAINING TO SAFEGUARDING MILITARY INFORMATION
Changes No. 1
Department of the Army,
Washington 25, D. C, 2S May 1952.
AR 380-10, 23 November 1951, is clianged as follows :
55. Presidential Directive of 13 March 1948
(Added) This Presidential directive has been relaxed as follows:
Hereafter, no information regarding individual loyalty or security cases shall
be provided in response to inquiries from outside the executive branch unless
such inquiries are made in writing. Where proper inquiries are made in writing,
replies will be confined to two categories of information as follows: (1) If an
employee has been separated on loyalty grounds, advice to that effect may be
given in response to a specific request for information concerning the particular
individual; and (2) if an employee has been separated as a security risk, replies
to specific requests for information about that individual may state only that
he was separated for reasons relating to suitability for employment in the par-
ticular agency. No information shall be supplied as to any specific intermediate
steps, proceedings, transcripts of hearings, or actions taken in processing an
individual under loyalty or security programs.
There is no objection to making available the names of all members of an agency-
loyalty board, but it is entirely improper to divulge the members who sat on
particular cases.
No exception shall be made to the above stated policy unless the agency head
determines that it would be clearly in tbe public interest to make specified in-
formation available, as in instances where the employee involved properly asks
tliat such action be taken for his own protection. In all such cases, the re-
quested information shall be released only after obtaining the approval of my
office.
Extracts from President's letter to Secretary of State, dated 3 April 1952.
[AG 380.01 (19 May 52) G2-SMI]
By Order of the Secretary of the Army :
J. Lawton Collins,
Vhicf of Staff.
Official :
Wm. E. Bergin,
Major General, USA,
The Adjutant General.
Mr. DE FuRiA. In testifying that day before Senator McCarthy,
General, were you endeavoring to comply with those directives?
General Zwicker. I was.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Before you testified, General Zwicker, do you recall
whether a copy of a letter was given to Senator McCarthy by Mr.
Jolm Adams?
General Zwicker. I do.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Who is Mr. Adams?
General Zwicker. Mr. Adams was counselor for the Department
of the Army.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Was he at the hearing in New York ?
General Zwicker. He was.
Mr. DE Furia. Is that both in the morning and the afternoon
sessions ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 459
General Zwicker. He was present during the mornino: session. He
was in the building during the afternoon session, but during the time
that I testified he was not })resent in the hearing room.
Mr. DE FuRiA. He was not in the executive session?
General Zwicker. No.
Mr. DE FuRiiV. ^AHien did he give the copy of this letter to Senator
McCarthy ?
General Zwicker. As I recall, sir, he handed a copy of this letter
to Senator McCarthy sometime between the close of the morning
session and the opening of the afternoon session.
Mr. DE Ftjria. Can you fix the time ?
Senator McCarthy. I believe it was approximately noon, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. And your testimony began at what hour?
General Zwicker. About 4 : 30, sir.
Mr. DE Pyuria. I show you a copy of a letter dated February 16,
1954, which I am going to ask the re])orter to mark as a committee
exhibit, and ask you whether you can identify it, sir.
Genreal Zwicker. This is a photostat of a ditto copy of a letter
which I have in my files, sir.
Mr. DE Furia. What connection does that photostat that I just
handed to you have with the copy of the letter given by Mr. Adams
to Senator McCarthy ?
General Zwicker. The copy given to Senator McCarthy by Mr.
Adams is identical to that I have in the book; in other words, a ditto
copy.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, we are getting into an area of testi-
mony now which Mv. Adams is perhaps only competent to testify to,
unless this letter that Mr. Adams handed to Senator McCarthy was
exhibited to the general before he handed it to him, and unless the
general saw that, we are coming into a matter of conclusion at this
point.
Mr. DE Furia. I intended to ask that. I cannot ask all my questions
at once. I am familiar with that rule, and if you will permit me to
ask my next 2 or 3 questions, I will cover that.
The Chairman. Go ahead with the examination.
Mr. DE Furia. Is that copy, so far as the wording and the words ex-
actly the same as the copy you saw in the hearing room handed by Mr.
Adams to Senator McCarthy ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE Furia. Wliat conversation did you hear with reference to
this paper handed by Mr. Adams to Senator McCarthy ?
Mr. Williams. Isn't Mr. Adams the best witness to that, Mr. Chair-
man? Aren't we going out into the area of hearsay? Shouldn't
John Adams come here to testify ?
The Chairman. If this witness is giving direct, personal testimony
of what he heard
Mr. Williams. I understood that is what hearsay was, when some-
body tried to testify to what he heard.
The Chairman. He was present and saw the letter discussed, and
heard the conversation. I do not Iniow how you can get it any more
direct.
52461—54 30
460 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Adams cannot testify any more directly than this witness, with
respect to that.
Mr. Williams. Is he offering it as proof of the truth of the things
that were offered here?
Mr. DE FuRiA. Senator McCarthy is a party to this conversation.
How that can possibly be hearsay is just amazing to me.
Mr. Williams. I am talking about what Mr. Adams said. You
asked what Mr. Adams said.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Of course I did, in the presence of Senator McCar-
thy, and heard by this witness. Now how that can be hearsay
The Chairman. I would say it is part of the res gestae. This en-
tire transaction has been gone into at some length and I think the
witness can testify as to what he heard said by Mr. Adams and what
what was said by Senator McCarthy, if he heard anything. If he
goes outside of the field we are talking about, of course it will probably
be objectionable.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Will you proceed, please, General ?
General Zwicker. Will you please ask your last question again?
Mr. DE FuRiA. The question is, what conversation did you hear, if
any, between Mr. Adams and Senator McCarthy with reference to the
copy of that letter handed to Senator McCarthy by Mr. Adams ?
General Zwicker. As Senator McCarthy looked at the letter, ha
said to Mr, Adams :
"I don't believe that Bob Stevens wrote this letter."
Mr. DE FuRiA. Wliat happened after that, if anything ?
General Zwicker. I don't know, sir. There is nothing further that
I can testify to as to what happened.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Wliat happened to the copy that Avas handed to Sen-
ator McCarthy by Mr. Adams?
General Zwicker. So far as I know, he kept it.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Who kept it?
General Zwicker. Senator McCarthy.
Mr. DE FuRTA. Now, General, do you remember at the conclusion
of your testimony being asked to step down from the witness stand?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you leave the room then ?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Who was in the room when you were asked to step
down?
General Zwicker. Captain Woodward and only members of the
committee or representatives of Senators who were members of the
committee.
Mr. DE FuRiA. What happened after you stepped down from the
witness stand?
General Zwicker. Senator McCarthy addressed me and said •
Mr. DE FuRiA. I want the number of persons present. Did an3'body
else come in the room or did anybody leave the room ?
General Zwicker. No one entered or left the room immediately, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Very well. Go ahead.
General Zwicker. Senator McCarthy looked at me, and he said,
"General, I'm going to have you back here Tuesday and put you on
display before the public in order that they may see just what kind of
incompetent officers we have in our x\rmy."
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 461
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you make any reply to that, sir ?
General Zwicker. 1 did not.
Mr. DE FuRiA. What happened next ?
General Zwicker. The Senator then invited the press into the
chambers,
Mr. DE FuRiA. How many gentlemen of the fourth estate came m
at that point ?
General Zwicker. A good many, 20 — 25.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Can you tell us what happened, what was said or
done after the press entered the room ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Will you, please ?
General Zwicker. I and other members who had attended the morn-
ing session, other Army members, since it was now open, took seats in
the jury box, which I would judge to be 10 to 15 feet from the table
about which the press was gathered, and at the head of which Senator
McCarthy took his place.
Senator McCarthy reviewed certain aspects of the testimony.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Well, can you give us his words, if possible, General ?
General Zwicker. I cannot.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Very well. Proceed.
The Chairman. Can you give the substance of his words, of his
statement ?
General Zwicker. I can give the effect on me, sir.
The Chairman. Well, you were not asked that. If you cannot re-
member the exact words,^ you are entitled, under the circumstances
at this time, to give substantially what was said.
General Za\t[Cker. Substantially, he indicated that I had been a very
balky witness; that I had failed to answer his questions; that he felt
that I was covering someone ; that he was going to get at the bottom
of this matter ; that he would not tolerate having officers answer ques-
tions in this manner.
I believe that's the substance, sir.
The Chairman. What did he tell them?
Did he tell them how you answered?
General Zwicker. Beg pardon, sir?
The Chairman. Did he tell them how you answered?
General Zwicker. I don't recall that he did, sir.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. DE FuRiA. AA^ill you proceed describing your recollection. Gen-
eral, of what occurred after the press came in?
General Zwicker. I recall further that he did address remarks to
me and others in the jury box.
Mr. DE Fitria. What were those remarks?
General Zwicker. To the effect that if we didn't agree with tlie
manner in which he had made his presentation before the press, that
it would be our privilege to contradict him or refute such statements.
Mr. DE FuELv. Now, this is Senator McCarthy speaking?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Very well.
What, if anything', did Senator M Carthy say to the press?
General Zwicker. In substance what I have tried to outline to
the chairman, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you make any reply?
462 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
General Zwicker. I did not. I felt that I was not privileged to
make a reply inasmuch as my trainino; has always led me to believe
an executive or closed session, wliether it be of a court or a hoard oi*
any hearing, is inviolate until after it has been publicly released. I,
therefore, could not make any remark on anything that I heard, in
my way of thinking, within the executive session.
Mr. DE FuKTA. Do you recall. General, whethei- any mention was
made to the pi'ess about the pi'oposed meeting for the following
Tuesday ?
General Zwicker. I'm sorry, sir. Will you repeat tluit question?
Mr. DE FuRTA. I think you said that Senatoi- McC^arthy said to
you that you would have to come back the following Tuesday, is that
i-ight?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Now, was any mention of that made M'hen tlie press
was in the room ?
General Zwicker. It was.
Mr. DE FtiRiA. Well, was that a repetition of the remark or is it
the same remark?
General Zwicker. No, sir. He did not use the same language that
he used to me prior to the press coming in.
Mr. DE FuRiA. He did not use that later?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. May we have a moment, sir, Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. The committee will resume session.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Chairman, I desire to have entered in the record
at this point the letter which lias already been handed to the reporter
to be marked as a connnittee exhibit and which is from Secretary of
the Army Stevens to Senator McCarthy under date of February 16,
1954, in re]dy to a letter from the Senator to the Secretaiy of Feb-
ruary 1, 1954.
Mr. Williams. Mr. de Furia, I know you have already given me
a copy of that letter. You gave it to me a couple of days ago, but I
am sorry it isn't handy now. May I have one, please ?
Mr. DE Furia. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. Thank you.
INIr. DE Furia. General, may I ask this one question : Am I correct
that this letter from Secretary of the Army Stevens to Senator
McCarthy, dated February IG, 1954, is not classified?
General Zwicker. It is not.
Mr. DE Furia. And I may read it, sir?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
The Ciiair:man. Does counsel want further time before we proceed
with the examination?
Mr. Williams. No, sir.
The Chairiman. You may proceed with the reading.
Mr. DE Furia (reading) :
February 16, 1954.
Hon. Joseph R. McCarthy,
Chairman, Permanent Investigating Suhcommittec,
United States Senate.
Dear Senator McCarthy: This refers to your letter of February 1 aud to
your telegram of February 8 sent from Aberdeen, S. Dak., both of M^hich make
reference to the Army officer, who, in a recent appearance before the Senate
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 463
Permanent Investigations Subcommittee, invoked tlie fiftli amendment and re-
fused to answer certain questions.
The developments of tliis case have made it obvious to me and to the Army
staff that there were defects in the Army procedures for handling men called to
duty under the provisions of the Doctors Draft Act, and that it has unfortunately
been possible in the past for commissions to be tendered to individuals who
might be undesirable. As a result of these disclosures I have already issued
instructions for corrective changes in current practices.
I believe that the changes already instituted will malie certain that there will
be no repetition of the circumstances which occurred in the case to which you
allude. These changes will avoid tendering a commission to any individual who
refuses to submit loyalty data, will terminate the commission of any Reserve
officer not on active duty who likewise refuses to submit such data, and will
require the immediate separation from active duty under conditions other than
honorable of Reserve officers who may refuse to answer questions on the subject
when properly asked. These rules may not be invoked in the case of Regular
officers, whose appointments are governed by different laws than are the Re-
serves, but I am having a study made to determine what if any changes of law
should be made to permit handling of a Regular officer if such a case should de-
velop in the future.
In addition to the foregoing steps, I have directed the Inspector General of the
Army to initiate an exhaustive investigation for the purpose of determining two
things : First, whether there are any additional areas of collusion or conspiracy
which might have been inspired bj' subversive interests in the assignment, trans-
fer, or other personnel handling of the officer in question.
Among the reasons why an isolated situation such as this can develop are
the great size of the Army, its fluctuating population, its worldwide operations,
and the fact that a large portion of our personnel, including a substantial pro-
portion of our medical and dental officers, are impressed into the service through
the operation of the Selective Service Act and the Doctors Draft Act. Taking
a cross section of the iwjpiilation as we do, there have been isolated possibilities
for individuals to receive commissions even though they may be undesirable.
This situation must and will be corrected.
The case of this officer had come to the Army's attention, and the decision
had been made on Decemt)er 30 to separate the officer from the service by reason
of his imwillinguess to submit loyalty information. The officer was in the last
60 days of his service prior to such separation when he was interrogated by your
committee. The changes being made in our procedures will, among other things,
require immediate separation of these individuals instead of giving them 90
days' notice, as was done in this case. The Army has been conducting loyalty
and security investigations for many years, both in Washington and in all of its
field headquarters, and is fully aware of its great responsibility to the Nation
to maintain as tight a security screen as is po.ssible. We are all cognizant of
the extent to which our system fell down in this case. AVe do not defend this
shortcoming and intend that such cases shall not recur.
You made reference to his change of orders for far-eastern duty. From the
early information which is available to me, the indications are that his request
for compassionate transfer to New York City was favorably considered only
after it was first concurred in by representatives of the American Red Cross,
who made a personal investigation of the facts and who advised his commanding
officers that his wife and child were in fact under medical care and in need of
his presence at home. It was then passed upon by a board of officers appointed
by the Surgeon General.
It should be emphasized that throughout the i>eriod when the officer was under
investigation he was assigned to duties of a nonsensitive nature and was not
given access to classified information.
During the period of investigation along with many other medical and dental
officers, this officer was adjusted in rank on criteria based on past professional
experience as established in the Doctors Draft Act. These adjustments were
automatic and were accomplished administratively in accordance witli the law
by the Department of the Army in Washington. Under this adjustment program
this officer was clianged in grade from captain to major. It is admitted that this
grade adjustment took place while the officer was under investigation. It .should
not have taken place. The circumstances of this advancement are being exam-
ined by the inspector general. I have taken steps to insure that such a thing
cannot happen again.
464 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The suggestion which you made in your letter that the officer's discharge
should be reversed and that he should be recalled for the purposes of court-
martial on charges of conduct unbecoming an officer have been examined and
appear to be impracticable. In the first place the separation of an officer under
circumstances such as this is a final action, and there is no means of vv'hich
I am aware by which the action could be successfully reversed. In the second
place the Army does not have available facts on which sound charges would
be placed, except the refusal of the officer to answer questions before the com-
mittee. Careful examination of authorizing legislation indicates that this act
in itself probably is not sufficient to sustain charges of any offense on the part
of the officer. A case based on very similar charges was prosecuted unsuccess-
fully last year by courts-martial.
You have further suggested in your letter the possibility that the individuals
who participated in the final personnel action on this individual should be
court-martialed for possible conspiracy. As stated, I have asked the inspector
general of the Army to investigate the case, and if there can be developed any
facts other than this was a routine personnel action taken under regulations
in existence at the time, you can be assuretl that I will take vigorous action
against the individuals involved.
Let me assure you that I appreciate the fact that you brought this matter
to my personal attention. I stated quite emphatically to members of the press
when I was interrogated on my return from the Far East on February 3, that
I had the personal feeling that an officer should not get an honorable discharge
from the service if he refuses to answer questions properly put to liim by a
congressional committee. The regulations now being published will assure that
similar actions in the future will result in discharge under other than honorable
conditions. I regret that this case was handled as it was during ray absence
in the Far East.
In your telegram you spoke of a War Department order of December 30, 1944,
prohibiting discrimination against military personnel because of political beliefs.
I have investigated the files on that matter, and have ascertained that the
directive in question was rescinded on March 4, 1946, during the tenure of the
late Robert P. Patterson as Secretary of "War.
You also alluded in your telegram to an Army order that files containing
evidence of Communist membership on the part of military personnel be de-
stroyed. As to this matter, I am having all the records of the Army carefully
searched for available information. From what I have already discovered, a
subcommittee consisting of Senators Bridges, Chandler, and O'Mahoney called
on Secretary of War Stimson on May 22, 1944, and on the following' day he
wrote them a l<^tter in which he assiired them that no such files were being
destroyed. Later, on February 27, 1945, Assistant Secretary McCloy appeared
before a special subcommittee of the House Committee on Military Affairs and
denied that records of this sort were being destroyed. Additionally, there is
in Army files a copy of a letter from Secretary Patterson to Senator Fergu.son
dated February 21, 1947, which indicates that he made another examination
into these same allegations and was satisfied that such records were not being
destro.ved.
When the inspector general has completed his investigation, I will communi-
cate with you further. In the meantime, with personal regards, I am
Yours sincerely,
Robert S. Stevens,
Secretary of the Army.
Mr. DE FuRiA, General Zwicker, in testifying before Senator Mc-
Carthy, did you intend to be evasive ?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
Mr, DE Fttria. Did you intend to be arrogant?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you intend to be irritating ?
General Z^VICKER. No, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Were you examined by Koy Cohn before being ex-
amined by Senator McCarthy?
By that, I mean were you questioned by Mr. Cohn ? Did he ask you
certain questions before Senator McCarthy questioned you ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 465
General Zwicker. I do not know whether Mr. Cohn asked his ques-
tions before or after, or during the progress of the interrogation.
He did, however, interrogate me.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Will you please look at a record of the hearing of
February 18, 1954, and refresh your recollection ?
General Zwicker. What page ?
Mr. DE FuRiA. The very beginning of that hearing, which would be
page 145, sir.
Colonel Johnson. May I say, Counsel, we do not have the pub-
lished copy. We have a photostatic copy here of the record.
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Can you tell us whether Mr. Cohn questioned you
before Senator McCarthy, or not ?
General Zwicker, He did.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Was there any difficulty between you and Mr. Cohn ?
General Zwicker. None whatever.
Mr. DE FuRiA. What was your demeanor toward Mr. Cohn, and what
was Mr. Cohn's demeanor toward you?
General Zwicker. Very proper.
Mr. DE FuRiA, Do you recall having a conversation with General
Lawton, General Zwicker ?
General Zwicker. I have had many conversations with General
Lawton, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. The conversation about which General Lawton tes-
tified?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. You recall that conversation ?
General Zwicker. I do.
Mr. DE FuRiA. In his testimony, General Lawton was unable to recall
any specific words or, as I think, as he said, any specific quotes on the
subject of Senator McCarthy.
Do you recall any conversation ?
General Zwicker. I do not.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Do you recall discussing Senator McCarthy, in your
conversation with General Lawton ?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. When did the Peress case first come to your attention,
sir?
General Zwickfji. In August of 1^53.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Had you at any time given the name of Peress to
Senator McCarthy, or to his committee?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Was that done by you voluntarily, or as a result of
being asked ?
General Zavicker. As a result of being asked by Mr. Anastos, of
Senator McCarthy's committee.
Mr. DE FuRiA. How did he ask you ? What did he say to you, and
when did he say it ?
General Zwicker. On January 21, 1954, 1 received a phone call from
Mr. Anastos, who represented himself to be a member of Senator
McCarthy's committee, and, not being willing to accept that, I asked
if I might return this call, calling him not by number, but by office,
and he said tliat would be fine.
I did that, and again got Mr. Anastos on the phone.
466 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The CiiAiRMAJf. I would like to call your attention to the fact that
counsel, in questioning you, first mentioned 1953, and in your last
statement, I think you mentioned August 195-1.
General Zwicker. In August 1953, sir, was the first that I became
familiar.
The Chairman. Unless my ears fooled me, I think that is what I
heard, first, 1953, and then you said August 195-1.
General Zwicker. I am sorry, sir. August 1953 is the correct date
on which we became fully acquainted with the Peress case.
Mr. DE Furia. And then, when did you talk to Mr. Anastos?
General Zwicker. I think, on January :21, 1954.
Mr, DE Furia. Very well.
Now, what did you tell Mr. Anastos; if anything?
General Zwicker. Mr. Anastos called and said, in substance, "We
understand that you have a major in the Dental Corps, stationed at
Camp Kilmer, who is — " I am sorry, I cannot testify as to the exact
speech.
Mr. DE Furia. All right.
General Zwicker. Counsel says I may.
Mr. DE Furia. Very well.
General Zwicker. Mr. Anastos said to me, ''We understand that you
have a dental major in the Dental Corps, stationed at Kilmer, wdio
is alleged to have a Connnunist background and has failed to sign the
necessary form," and other words of that general nature.
I replied, after having gotten the question, and after the first part
of the call, having called Mr. Anastos back to be sure I w^as talking
to Mr. Anastos, and that he was definitely a representative of Senator
McCarthy's connnittee. I said — and Mr. Anastos should recall it —
"Ml-. Anastos, I believe that the person to whom you were referring
is Maj. Irving Peress."
Mr. DE Furia. General, in testifying before Senator McCarthy, did
you utter any untruth whatever?
General Zwicker. Not knowingly ; I did not.
Mr, DE Furia. Have you gone over your testimony since that day
in New York ?
General Zwicker, Yes, sir,
Mr. DE Furia. Can you tell this committee today whethei- or not,
upon reflection and consideration of your answers, you, in your opin-
ion, uttered any untruth whatever, under oath, before Senator Mc-
Carthy?
General Zwicker, In my opinion, I certainly did not.
Mr, DE Furia. Mr, Chairman, that concludes our questions of this
witness at this time, sir.
The Chairman. There is a matter that has come to the attention
of the Chair. However, I think I shall wait until the witness has been
examined by Mr. Williams before taking that up.
Senator Stennis, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Stennis.
Senator Stennis. I do not w^ant to question the witness now, but
for clarification I wanted to know to Avhom the letter that has just
been read, signed by Secretary Stevens, was addressed and what was
its date?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 467
Mr. DE FuRiA. February 16, 1954, to Hon. Joseph K. McCarthy,
from Kobert T. Stevens, Secretary of the Army. I have a copy here
that I should be very happy to pass down to you, Senator.
Senator Stennis'. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman, Do you wish to ask any further questions, Senator
Stennis ?
Senator Stennis. No, thank you.
The Chairman. I understood generally that the connnittee would
ask questions after the counsel had finished.
The committee members, of course, may ask questions at any time
they desire.
Are there any members of the committee who wish to ask the wit-
ness any questions at this stage?
Senator Johnson. I have some questions.
The Chairman. Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. General Zwicker, are you a graduate of West
Point?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Senator Johnson. You have been in the Army all your life, then,
since graduation ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Senator Johnson. Have you ever resented, or have you ever ex-
pressed resentment with respect to, letters to you from Members of
Congress, or inquiries by Members of Congress concerning military
personnel serving under your command ?
General Zwicker. No, and quite the contrary, sir.
Senator Johnson. Would you and do you and have you classed
congressional letters or inquiries as PI, meaning political influence?
General Zwicker. No.
Senator Johnson. Have you ever marked such letters "PI" and
attached them to the files of uiilitary personnel serving under you '.
General Zwicker. Never.
Senator Johnson. You have never been provoked or expressed pro-
vocation over inquiries made to you by Members of Congress with
respect to personnel serving under you ?
General Zwicker. No, sir; not provoked.
Senator Johnson. What would you call it then, if not provoked ?
General Zwicker. AYell, it adds a great burden to the work that has
to be done at any headquarters at some time or other, Mr. Senator,
and it is just another time-consuming function which we, as post
commanders or anyone associated must perform. Of course, we must
reply to those letters and it is a time-consuming function.
Senator Johnson. And an onerous function ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir. If you wish me, I could give you my
opinion of such letters.
Senator Johnson. Well, I would like to have your opinion of such
letters, sir.
General Zavicker. For a long period of time, from the time I arrived
at Camp Kilmer until almost the first of 1954, I was averaging six
congressional letters a day. It required that those letters be answered
within 48 hours after their receipt. Each of such letters had some-
thing to do with personnel who were either at or being processed
through Camp Kilmer.
468 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
I, myself, and I was very careful to instruct my staff that these let-
ters be given the fullest consideration because it was my experience
that they were, a portion of such letters were, in fact, correct and, in
fact, had brought to my attention or someone else's attention an
injustice of some kind that should be corrected.
Therefore, it has always been my opinion that regardless of how
many we get, how many which may not have any substance in fact,
that there are always bound to be some which call to our attention
correctable deficiencies. Therefore, each must be investigated thor-
oughly and each must be answered fi'ankly, and if there is corrective
action necessary, it should be taken immediately.
Senator Johnson. You have taken these inquiries seriously then?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir ; very seriously.
Senator Johnson. And courteously?
General Z\vicker. Yes, sir.
Senator Johnson. You, of course, understand that Members of
Congress must pass on inquiries to the military and that the right of
petition is a constitutional right, and that soldiers are entitled to
that right the same as other civilians ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Senator Johnson. Is that your belief ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Senator Johnson. And your attitude?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Senator Johnson. General, do you have a right to be more frank
in your testimony today than you had in the hearing before Senator
McCarthy?
Are the wraps off today and were they not off when you testified
before Senator McCarthy.
General Zwicker. I do not believe there is much difference, sir. I
think that the rules have been relaxed to permit me to testify here to
certain things that I felt I could not testify to at the time that Senator
McCarthy had his hearing.
Senator Johnson. Then there were no more restrictions when you
testified before Senator McCarthy than are imposed upon you at this
time?
General Zwicker. I do not believe so ; no, sir.
Senator Johnson. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Does any other Senator wish to question the wit-
ness ? If not, Mr. Williams, you may proceed.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, as I understand you, sir, you took command at Camp
Kilmer in July 1953 ; is that right?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. Where had you been assigned prior to coming to
Camp Kilmer?
General Zavicker. Immediately prior to that, I was assistant divi-
sion commander of the Fifth Infantry Division at Indiantown Gap,
Pa.
Mr. Williams. It was in August, as I understood it from your tes-
timony, that you became aware of the Irving Peress case; is that right?
General Zwicker. That is right.
Mr. Williams. You knew that Peress had been in the Army since
January of 1953, January 1, to be exact, is that not correct?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 469
General Zwicker. I would have to refresh my memory as to the
date when he came into the Army.
Mr. Williams. You do not have any recollection on that?
General Zwicker. No immediate recollection, Mr. Williams ; no, sir.
Mr. Williams. But he had been at Camp Kilmer for some time an-
tedating your being there ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir ; he came to Kilmer in March of 1953.
Mr. Williams. And it was almost as soon as you took over at Camp
Kilmer that this case was brought to your attention ?
General Zavicker. Within a month.
Mr. Williams. It was brought to your attention, because, as has
been indicated here today, in direct examination and in this letter,
Peress was under investigation for loyalty reasons ?
That has already come out here, General. You said this is not
classified information.
Mr. de Furia read that very thing into the the record a few minutes
ago.
The Chairman. Just a minute. There is no reason to lecture the
witness. He has a right to ask his counsel. He will probably answer
when he gets done conferring with his counsel, but I wouldn't lecture
him in the meantime.
Colonel Johnson. I want to get the exact purport of how much is
included. Can it be reread ?
Mr. Williams. I will restate it for you. Colonel, so that it will
save the reporter's going back.
I asked General Zwicker if, in August, right after he took com-
mand at Camp Kilmer, it was brought to his attention that Irving
Peress, a captain at that time under his conmiand, was under loyalty
investigation for Communist activities.
General Zwicker. I must really decline to answer that question
on the grounds of the Presidential order.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask you if you will,
sir, to order this witness to answer that question for this reason:
There cannot be any question about this being classified information
now, because as I understood the direct examination, the letter which
was read into evidence from Secretary Stevens to Senator McCarthy
relates that very information which this witness at that time said in
response to a question from Mr. de Furia was not classified infor-
mation.
Now when I undertake to cross-examine him on this, his counsel
advises him that it becomes classified again. So I respectfully request
tliat he be ordered to answer this question.
The Chairman. Will you direct my attention to the specific lan-
guage in the letter? I do not have a copy before me, and I do not
recollect it.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. At page 3, it says, on the very top :
It is admitted that this .crade adjustment took place while the officer was
under investigation. It should not have taken place. The circumstances of this
advancement are being examined by the Inspector General.
At another point, Mr. Chairman, at page 2, in the second para-
graph. Secretary Stevens, in this unclassified letter, says :
The case of this officer had come to the Army's attention, and the decision had
been made on December 30 to separate the officer from the service by reason of
his unwillingness to submit loyalty information.
470 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
NoM-, there cannot be any question about this being chissified
information.
General Zwicker himself has said, under oath, it was not classi-
fied, and Secretary of the Army Stevens relates this information in a
letter. It has been i-ead into the record, and I ask again that the
general be ordered to answer this question, so that I may continue my
cross-examination.
The Chairman. Since you have had your attention called to
instances in the letter from Secretary Stevens to Senator McCarthy,
will you change your position?
General Zwicker. No.
The Chairman. I would like — I think the committee would like —
an explanation of how this material, or the fact that he was under
investigation, having you testify to it, is breaking security i-egula-
tions.
Can you explain that. General?
Colonel Johnson. Mr. Chairman, would the chairman object to my
attempting to give a short explanation for the general, since it is a
matter
The Chairman. Well, the committee is very much interested in
this matter and, unless there is some overriding reason, we want the
question answered.
Colonel Johnson. Well, the general basis of it is, sir, that a file,
which is a classified file, is beyond the scope of examination insofar as
the general is concerned.
The fact that the Secretary of the Army may have undertaken to
release, through a letter, to someone outside the Army, information
that is within that file or may be within it, does not, in any way,
declassify the file.
Insofar as the general was concerned, he is still bound by the classi-
fication contained on the file itself, and the fact that Secretary Stevens
in an unclassifie(,l letter gave certain information to Senator McCarthy
and the Army has furnished copies of that letter to this committee, does
not release General Zwicker from his responsibilities under the security
regulations.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. In other words, what you are saying is that the
Secretary can say that he was under investigation, but it does not
unbind the mouth of the general to say the same thing?
Colonel Johnson. That is right, sir.
The Chairman. That is the legal position the Army takes in that
matter ?
Colonel Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. AViLLiAMS. May I be heard, sir?
The Chairman. We will listen to you, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Thank you.
I ask, sir, that the reporter read to this committee the direct exami-
nation of General Zwicker here this morning, wherein it is my distinct
and clear recollection, and I will stand on it until the reporter says I
am wrong, that Mr. de Furia handed General Zwicker the letter; Gen-
eral Zwicker said that he had read the contents of that letter ; he had
read them both on February 18 and he had looked at the letter again
this morning and identified it.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 471
Mr. de Furia asked General Zwicker if it contained classified infor-
mation.
He said, "No, sir."
Mr. de Furia said, "May I read it?"
General Zwicker said, "Yes, sir."
Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman, may I
Colonel Johnson. May I respectfully point out, sir, that he did
not ask whether the letter contained classified information.
He asked whether the letter was classified,
Mr. DE Furia. That is right.
Colonel Johnson. And it is not.
Mr. DE Furia. That is right.
The Chairman. No demonstrations, please, or we will have to send
out of the room those who offend.
Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. I am sorry I had to say that, but this is the first
time it has occurred since we started these hearings. The behavior
has been very good, up to this point.
Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Stennis.
Senator Stennis. May I just make this observation to the Chair?
I understand tlie inquiry here is merely as to the fact: Was there
an investigation in progress?
The question doesn't go to what the file discloses, the facts that are
in the file.
As I understand Mr. Williams' question, it is just: Was there an
investigation in progress at this time?
Mr. Williams. That is my question. Senator.
Senator Stennis. It seems to me like that has already been disclosed.
In effect, he said it would not be an admissible fact without going
into the file itself.
The Chairman. That happens to be the Chair's memory, that
that
Mr. Williams. I also want to point out to the Chair that General
Zwicker has already testified, under direct examination, that he told
Mr. Anastos on January '21 that this investigation had been conducted,
and it wasn't apparently classified at that time, when he told it to Mr.
Anastos, and he wasn't referring to the letter at that time.
He was imparting the very infownation which he now contends,
through his lawyer, is classified information.
Colonel Johnson. I believe that again, sir, is a misstatement of
what the testimony was.
The Chairman. Just a moment.
Colonel Johnson. The testimony was that he was requested, given
certain information by Mr. Anastos, and he replied, in a letter on
that, probably the individual Mr. Anastos sought was Major Peress.
He did not state
Tlie Chairman. Well, I tliink you are right on that.
Mr. Williams. In other words, it isn't classified information when
he identifies the ver}' individual who is on examination.
Is that your position, Colonel?
He identified the very individual who was under examination and
investigation by the Army on January 21, to Mr. Anastos, and it
472 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
wasn't classified at that time, but for purposes of cross-exaniiuatioii
it becomes classified here today?
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit, sir, that information is either
classified or not, and 1 don't think it becomes unclassified because it
is in this letter and classified because it is the subject of cross-examina-
tion, unclassified when he is talking to Mr. Anastos and classified
when I ask him about it.
It seems to me that is playing- tweedledee and tweedledum.
I think I am entitled to answers to these questions.
I ask the Chair again that he be ordered to answer it.
The Chairman. The question again is, of course, what this witness
is permitted to do under his Army orders, under the regulations. The
information, itself, maj^ be perfectly harmless, but if his orders are
that he can't discuss that matter or reveal that this gentleman was
under investigation, I don't see why we should try to compel him to-
answer if those are his orders.
I think if it is highly important, since we have the letter, anyway,
from the Secretary, himself, we could make the request of the De-
fense Department that he may answer that one question ; but I antici-
pate the next question you want to ask will have the effect of going
into the files. Is that what you intend to do ?
Mr. Williams. You are anticipating me improperly, now, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. I am sorry.
Mr. WiLLL\MS. I liope that isn't a predicate for your ruling, what
question I may ask hereafter.
I simply want an answer to this question at this time, and I think
we are entitled to a ruling on it.
The Chairman. I am very much in doubt on this point. Since it
has been brought forth, I am very much in doubt. The Secretary
has already made the statement, himself, but does that put the Army
officer into the position where he can answer ?
We will pass that for the moment.
It has been suggested by Senator Stennis we take the matter under
advisement during the recess.
Senator Si^ennis. I just say that since we are so near 12 o'clock.
The Chairman. I think that is a good question. It is a very close-
question ; and if you have other matters you can examine on, we will
reserve that question.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
I shall pass from that question. General, the question as to whether
or not Peress was under investigation, to your knowledge, in August
of 1953, for Communist activities, and I can ask you, sir, if he re-
mained on active duty in September of 195'3 at your post?
General Zwicker. He did.
Mr. Williams. I shall ask you if he remained on active dutv in
October of 1953 ?
General Zwicker. He did.
Mr. Williams. And in November of 1953, as I recall your testi-
mony on direct examination. Captain Peress was promoted to Major
Peress, is that correct?
General Zavicker. There was an adjustment of rank made in No-
vember.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 473
Mr. WnxiAMs. The adjustment was not down ; it was up, wasn't it ?
General Zwicker. I am sorry, sir.
Mr. Williams. The adjustment was not down, was it ?
General Zwicker. Oh, no.
Mr. Williams. It was up ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. And he became a major in November of 1953?
General Zwicker. That's cori'ect.
Mr. Williams. Then, in December of 1953, he was still on active
duty at your post ?
General Zwicker, He was.
Mr. W1L1.IAMS. Is that correct ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. Of course, you cannot tell us, as I understand, your
interpretation and your counsel's interj)retation as to the course of the
investigation at this time?
General Zwicker. That's correct.
Mr. Williams. It was in January 1953 that you had had this con-
versation with Mr. Anastos ; is that right ?
General Zavicker. What conversation ?
Mr. Williams. The only conversation you talked about this morning.
General Zwicker. Yes, sir ; that's correct.
Mr. WnxiAMs. With Mr. Anastos — that is the only one I am asking
you about. Did you have several conversations with him ?
General Zavicker. Two, sir.
Mr. WiLLiAiMs. When was the other one ?
General Zw^icker. The one on the 21st of January and one on the
23d of January,
Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Williams, wasn't that 1954 ?
General Zwicker. Yes ; 1954, not 1953.
Mr. Williams. We have not reached the 21st — which conversation
are you talking about, the 21st of January 1953 ; is that correct — 1954 ?
General Zwicker. 1954.
Mr. Williams. Now, at the time that you had that conversation,
Peress was still on active duty at Camp Kilmer?
General Zwicker. He was.
Mr. Williams. He was still at that time a major ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. So that there had^been an elapsed period of some 6
months since this case came to your attention for the first time when
you took over as commander of Camp Kilmer ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. Now, General, you were asked on February 18, when
you took the witness stand, this question. So that you can follow with
me, I direct your attention to page 14G of the printed copy.
Mr. DE Furia. Is that February 18, Mr. Williams ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Well, you know that somebody has kept this man on, knowing
he was a Communist, do you not?
And you answered that question, "No, sir."
Your answer was that you did not know that anyone had kept him
on, knowing he was a Communist ; is that right ?
General Zwicker. That's correct.
474 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. Now, when you made that answer, you did know, did
you not, that in August of 1953, he had cLaimed the fifth amendment
when asked about his Communist activities ?
General Zwicker. I must respectfully decline to answer that.
Just a moment, i)lease.
(The witness confers with his counsel, Colonel Johnson.)
The Chairman. I would like to have the question read back. It
seems to me there was something in the question that might be
objectionable.
(The reporter read the question referred to as follows :)
"The Chairman. Well, you know that somebody has kept this man on, knowing
he was a Communist, do you not?"
And you answered that question :
"No, sir."
Your answer was that you did not know that anyone had kept him on, knowing
he was a Communist, is that right?
General Zwicker. That's correct.
Mr. Williams. Now, when you made that answer, you did know, did you not,
that in August of 1953, he had claimed the fifth amendment when asked about his
Communist activities?
General Zwicker. I must respectfully decline to answer that.
The Chairman. The question, you are basing that on a statement.
I don't remember that being in evidence that he in August was known
to bs a Communist.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Is there anything before this committee that indi-
(;ates that was the fact?
Mr. Williams. That is in the record, sir, many times, in both the
Peress testimony, and in Senator McCarthy's direct testimony.
The Chairman. I do not recall it before this committee.
Mr. Williams. I am asking him.
The Chairman. I realize that you are asking him that question,
but I thought probably in the very nature of the question itself you
were stating something that has not been before this committee.
It is based on something that does not appear here in evidence.
Mr. WiLLL\Ms. I am sorry, but it does appear in evidence, Mr,
Chairman. I don't mean to contradict you.
The Chairman. Can you direct me to the point where it is ?
Mr. Williams. We have already offered in evidence, and it has been
received, the testimony of Dr. Peress, and in Dr. Peress' testimony he
said that he, in August of 1953, declined to answer questions when
asked whether or not he was a member of the Communist Party in an
Army investigation on that subject.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. Senator Ervin.
Senator Ervin. I respectfully submit that the general, the witness
is not charged with knowledge of everything that everybody has testi-
fied to.
Mr. Williams. Of course he is not, Senator, and nobody contends
that he is.
What I am doing now is simply asking him one question : Whether
or not, when he made that answer, he knew — he knew whether or not
Peress had taken the fifth nmendment in August of 1953, when he
was asked whether he was a Communist.
That is all I am asking — if he knew it.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 475
The Chairman. Is that the question you asked? I thought you
asked him if he knew he was a Communist.
Mr. Williams. Oh, no, sir; I very clearly asked him if he knew,
when he made this answer on February 18, 1954, if he knew that in
August of 1953 Peress had taken the fifth amendment at his camp.
Camp Kilmer, in an Army investigation, when he was asked, "Are you
a member of the Communist Party?"
I am asking General Zwicker if he knew that when he made this
answer, because I think it goes right to the candidness of this answer,
which is very germane to this inquiry.
The Chairman. As I understand, you object on the ground that
he is not permitted to answer that question ?
Colonel Johnson. He is not permitted to answer it ; no, sir.
Mr. WiLKLi.MS. Now, General, you answered the question, did you
not, when you were asked whether or not you knew that Peress was
kept on by someone in the Army with the knowledge he was a Com-
munist?
You answered that, did you not? You answered that at page 146?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Willl4MS. But you feel that you cannot answer the question
when I ask you : Do you know whether or not he took the fifth amend-
ment when he was asked if he was a Communist ?
There is a difference between those two questions? One you can
answer, and one is classified ? Is that it ?
General Zwicker. That's correct.
Mr. Williams. Is that your interpretation of the Presidential
order?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. That you may answer when you are asked, "Do you
know that somebody has kept this man on, knowing he was a Commu-
nist?" you may answer "No, sir," but then when you are asked "You
know somebody has kept him on knowing that he has taken the fifth
amendment," then you may not answer? I am just trying to get your
position. General, so I will understand it in the course of my exami-
nation.
General Zwicker. My position is this, sir. The question — "Well,
you know that somebody has kept this man on knowing that he was
a Communist, do you not?"
Mr. Williams. Yes.
General Z^vicker. To which I answered, "No, sir."
Mr. Williams. That is what is not classified, correct?
General Zwicker. That's correct.
Mr. Williams. That did not seek classified information.
General, would you answer my last question ?
General Zwicker, Beg pardon?
Mr. Williams. That question, in your opinion, did not call for an
opinion that gave classified information, is that right ?
General Zwicker. That's right. It had nothing
Mr. Williams. It had nothing to do with the classified material?
General Zwicker. It had nothing at all to do with any material
that may have been in any personnel file of anyone.
Mr. Williams. I see ; but when the next question comes :
52461—54 31
476 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
"Do you know, sir, that this man was kept on when it was known
that he had taken the fifth amendment on Communist activities?" that
becomes classified?
General Zwicker. It does.
The Chairman. Just a moment. Let him finish his answer.
General Zwicker. I may be able to clarify that.
Mr. Williams. I wish you would because, frankly, I don't under-
stand your position yet.
General Zwicker. That last question may or may not refer to mate-
rial which is a part of a personnel record of some person which I am
not at liberty to divulge any part of that record. That is the basis,
sir, on which I must decline to answer that particular question, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. We will reserve that one with the other. I will
assume you want an order that he be directed to answer the question.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. We will reserve that with the other one.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Now, General, looking at this same page, page 146, 1 want to direct
your attention now to a point about two-thirds of the way down,
where you are asked the question :
You know that somebody signed or authorized an honorable discharge for this
man, knowing that he was a fifth amendment Communist, do you not?
Then the answer :
General Zwicker. I know that an honorable discharge was signed for the man.
Now, at the time that you made that answer, you knew, did you not,
that he had claimed the fifth amendment when asked the precise
question ?
General Zwicker. I knew that he had given testimony or failed to
give testimony before Senator McCarthy and claimed the fifth amend-
ment; yes.
Mr. Williams. But you didn't say that in response to the question
you were asked; did you?
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that the ques-
tion which was asked did not ask the general what his knowledge was,
but what the knowledge of some third person was.
The Chairman. Let's get that question. I was unable to find it as
counsel was reading it. You say it is on page 146?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. The question is :
The Chairman. You know that somebody has kept this man on knowing be
was a Communist, do you not?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
The Chairman. I am speaking now to counsel. I am trying to lo-
cate the exact question from the record.
Mr. Williams. The exact question, Mr. Chairman, appears two-
thirds of the way down on page 146.
The question is :
You know that somebody signed or authorized an honorable discharge for this
man, knowing he was a fifth-amendment Communist, do you not?
The answer was :
I know that an honorable discharge was signed for the man.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 477
Now, my question is
Tlie Chairman. Just a moment. I am calling for this information
so that I may properly make a ruling on it. I think Senator Ervin
is correct in the interpretation of that question that somebody who
signed or authorized an honorable discharge for the man is the man
who knew he was a fifth-amendment Communist, that didn't call for
the conclusion on the present witness as to whether or not he was.
Mr. Williams. Let's approach it this way : You knew that at this
time, at the time you made this answer, did you not, General ?
General Zwicker. I respectfully decline to answer that question.
Colonel Johnson. May I ask that you clarify that question for the
witness ?
Are you talking about this particular question or the last one you
asked ?
Mr. Williams. I am asking General Zwicker if, at the time that he
made this answer, he did not know that Peress had taken the fifth
amendment when asked about his Communist activities.
General Zwicker. That question is answered in the affirmative, Mr.
Williams, to the effect that I knew that when he appeared before Sen-
ator McCarthy's committee, he had invoked the fifth amendment.
Mr. Williams. Well, now do you recall whether you knew at that
time that he had invoked the fifth amendment when he was asked
whether he was a Communist ?
The Chairman. I think he has answered, but he may answer again.
He said that with respect to whether General Zwicker knew he was a
Communist, he said that he couldn't answer that, but your question is,
as I interpret it, directed to him to answer whether somebody else
knew that.
Mr. Williams. That is not my question. I think General Zwicker
knows what my question is, don't you understand my question.
General ?
General Zwicker. I thought I had answered it, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. I asked you. General, whether you knew at the time
you were giving these answers to which I now referred — I am now
asking you whether you did not know that Major Peress had declined
to answer questions about his Communist activities on the basis of the
fifth amendment.
General Zwicker. Yes, and I answered that in the affirmative just
a moment ago that I did know that Major Peress had declined to
answer questions, taking refuge in the fifth amendment when he ap-
peared before Senator McCarthy's committee.
Mr. Williams. You knew that the day after Peress had appeared
there, did you not?
General Zwicker. I did.
Mr. Williams. Then, General, look at page 147, at the top there,
where the chairman asked you :
And you knew generally that he had refused to tell whether he was a Com-
munist, did you not?
You answered then :
I don't recall whether he refused to tell whether he was a Communist.
Was that an incorrect answer ?
General Zwicker. No, sir; it was not.
478 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. Is that consistent with the testimony that yon are
giving here now ?
General Zwicker. It is.
Mr. Williams. Did you not just tell us :
I don't recall whether he testified to tell whether he was a Communist.
Was that an incorrect answer ?
General Zwicker. No, sir ; it was not.
Mr. Williams. Is that consistent with the testimony that yon are
giving here now ?
General Zwicker. It is.
Mr. Williams. Didn't you just tell us, sir, that you did know the
day that Peress testified tliat he had refused to answer questions con-
cerning his Communist activities ?
General Zwicker. I don't believe that was your question, sir, but
my answer •
Mr. Williams. I just ask you. General, whether you knew whether
or not you knew the day after Peress testified in executive session that
he had refused to answer questions concerning his Communist activ-
ities, and I understood your clear answer to be, "Yes, I did know that."
Now, I have directed your attention to the question on page 147,
of your testimony on page 148, and your answer at that time was, "I
don't recall whether he refused to tell whether he was a Communist."
Now I am asking you which is your answer, the answer you just gave
or both, with an explanation?
General Zwicker. Personally, I don't see any difference between the
statements.
Mr. Williams. You don't see any difference between not remem-
bering whether a man said something at the time and stating that you
clearly remember that he did say something at the time ?
General Zwicker. If you could state your question, I will try to give
you an exact answer.
Mr. Williams. I will restate it. General.
I will try to do it as clearly as I can.
The record will show that I asked you just a few moments ago this
question. I said to you :
General, did you know the day after Peress testified before Senator McCarthy's
committee in executive session that he had refused to answer questions about his
Communist activity?
And you said :
Yes ; I knew.
Then I directed your attention to this question which had been pro-
pounded to you on February 18 of 1954, the day in question here, and
at that time you said you did not recall whether he had refused to tell
whether he was a Communist.
Now, my question to you. General, is this: Which is your position,
did you or did you not know at the time and if both of your answers
are correct, is there an explanation of the consistency?
General Zwicker. If there is an inconsistency betw^een — there seems
to be an inconsistency. The statement on page 147 that "I don't recall
whether he refused to tell whether he was a Communist" — "to tell
whether he was a Conununist" — is still correct; and I reiterate that
I did know at that time, as I answered you earlier, that I was aware
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 479
that Major Peress did take the fifth amendment, or took refuge behind
the fifth amendment, in failing to answer certain questions asked by
Senator McCarthy's committee.
Mr. Williams. Well, you said, did you not, "I don't recall whether
he refused to tell" — which was taking refuge under the fifth amend-
ment, I understand — whether he was a Communist. You did not
recall when you were testifying before Senator McCarthy about this
man, when I asked you the question, and you responded, "Yes, I knew
that he had taken the fifth amendment when asked whether he was a
Communist."
Now, you do see inconsistency there, do you not ?
General Zwicker. No, sir ; I do not.
Mr. Williams. You do not ?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
Mr. Williams. Well, let us pass, then, to the next question.
Now, I wanted to direct your attention to page 146.
Senator Stbnnis. Mr. Williams, will you excuse me just a minute,
before we move from that point ?
Mr. Chairman, the remark is made here that the questions are clear,
and that the witness understands the questions. I understand this
will be read by many Senators and before we leave the subject, I think
it best for all parties — I want to say that the question has not always
been clear to me
Mr. Williams. All right.
Senator Stennis. As tliey have been bandied back and forth —
without anyone's fault. It has not been clear just what was intended
to be asked at the time ; and, without its being Mr. Williams' fault at
all — he is an excellent lawyer — he has gone from one question to
another in the original McCarthy hearing very rapidly, and it was
difficult for me to follow.
Mr. Williams. I will adopt your suggestion, certainly. Senator,
and go more slowly ; and I certainly want General Zwicker to take all
the time that he wants to take before answering these questions, and
to consult with counsel, if he wants to. I certainly have that intention.
Senator Stennis. I am sure you do.
Mr. Williams. General, I want to call your attention now, if I may,
to page 146. I want to direct your attention to the last quarter of
that page. I hope the committee follows. Do you have that, sir ?
General Zwicker. I do.
Mr. Williams. Now there the chairman says :
The clay the honorable discharge was signed, were you aware of the fact that
he had appeared before our committee?
General Zwicker. I was.
Are you following me there. General ?
General Zwicker. I do.
Mr. Williams. I continue :
The Chairman. And had refused to answer certain questions?
General Zwicker. No, sir ; not specifically on answering any questions. I knew
that he had appeared before your committee.
Now, when you gave those answers. General, were you not telling
the chairman that you did not know that Peress had refused to answer
questions ?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
480 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. You were not ? What was in your mind when you
made those answers, sir — so that we will have this clear for the purpose
of the record.
General Zwicker. The chairman, if you will follow me, said :
And had refused to answer certain questions?
The terminology "certain" delimits questions. That means specifi-
cally a question or certain questions. My answer was :
No, sir ; not specifically on answering any questions. I knew that he had
appeared before your committee.
I was not at that time, through the reading of the press releases, at
all conversant with any specific questions and answers that had been
given or asked.
Mr. Williams. So that when you made that answer, you intended
to say, did you, that you did not know the exact phraseology of the
questions that he refused to answer ? Is tliat what you mean ?
General Zwicker. If I understand you correct, that is right, Mr,
Williams. I did not study the questions or the answers to the extent
where I would remember any question asked, or any specific question
answered.
Mr. Williams. Well, you did know, did you not, that he had refused
to answer questions?
General Zwicker. I did.
Mr. Williams. You did? But, when the chairman asked you
whether or not you knew he had refused to answer certain questions,
jou said:
No; I did not know he refused to answer specific question.s.
and you were delimiting it to mean that you did not know the exact
questions he refused to answer ; is that what you meant ?
General Zwicker. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Williams. Now, you did know at this time that you made these
answers that he had taken refuge in the fifth amendment, did you not ?
General Zwicker. I did.
Mr. Williams. And you did know that he took refuge when the ques-
tions related to communism ?
General Zwicker. Specifically related to communism, I don't know
at that time whether I knew that that was specifically the case.
I can well imagine that that must have been the case.
Mr. Williams. Is it your testimony now. General, that you did not
know then that his refusal to answer the questions was related to ques-
tions on communism ?
In other words, is it your testimony now that although you knew
he refused to answer questions, you did rot know that those questions
related to communism ?
General Zwicker. I think that my testimony will indicate what I
said at that time, sir.
Mr. Williams. Well, let me read what you said and see if this is
your position.
At page 146 the chairman asked you thi'-' question :
The day the Iionorable discharge was signed, were you aware of the fact that
he had appeared before our committee?
General Zwicker. I was.
The Chairman. And had refused to answer certain questions?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 481
General Zwickeb. No, sir ; not specifically on answering any questions. I knew
that he had appeared before your committee.
Now, that is the answer that you gave on page 146.
Then you were asked, at page 147, directly across the page:
The Chairman. Did you know that he refused to answer questions about his
Communist activities?
And you said :
Specifically, I don't believe so.
And then, at page 148, at the top of the page, the second paragraph
of the chairman's question :
Now, is it your testimony now that at the time you read the stories about
Major Peress that you did not know that he had refused to answer questions
before this committee about his Communist activities?
And you said :
I am sure I had that impression.
Is that correct, General ?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Williams. But you did not respond to that question as to what
knowledge you did have for some two pages.
Is that because you were confused about the nature of the contents
of the question, sir ?
General Zwicker. If that is your interpretation.
Mr. Williams. Do you see there the inconsistency in your position
today ?
General Zwicker. No; I don't see any inconsistency. I can see
where, looking over this testimony, that certainly persons reading it
might be confused as to the intent of a questioner, or the intent of an
answerer in being specific in answering those questions.
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Now, the fact of the matter is, getting away from these questions
entirely for a moment, you had read the press on January 31 and
February 1, in which there was an account of Peress' going before the
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and declining to answer
the question as to his Communist activities.
You had read that?
General Zwicker. I had read the press release.
Mr. Williams. This was a man in your command and, of course,
you had an interest in the case because it had been called to your
attention some 6 months before, and he was still on active duty
there.
General Zwicker. He was there.
Mr. Williams. And you had acute interest in what Major Peress
did, since you had the case before you and there was an investigation
proceeding ?
General Zwicker. Yes; I was interested in that.
Mr. Williams. So you did read it in the press ; did you not ?
General Zwicker. Yes.
Mr. W1LI.1AMS. That is right. You knew that Major Peress had
appeared before this committee and was asked whether or not he was
a Communist and did decline to answer.
General Zwicker. I read all the press releases that were made
available.
482 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. As a matter of fact, you had had a conversation
with Major Peress on February 1, at the time that he came to you
after appearing before the subcommittee; is that right?
General Zwicker. I did.
Mr. Williams. At that time did he ask you to conduct an investi-
gation of him and his activities?
General Zwicker. I believe he did request something of that
nature.
Mr. Williams. At the time he came before you, he had already
been before the subcommittee ?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Williams. And you already knew at that time that he had
taken refuge in the fifth amendment when asked about communism?
General Zwicker. I knew he had taken refuge in the fifth amend-
ment.
Mr. Williams. And he came to you and asked you to to investigate?
General Zwicker. No; I don't recall that he asked for me to in-
vestigate him. I think he requested that his case be investigated by
our, headquarters.
Mr. Williams. In other words, he did not ask you to investigate
him. He asked you to investigate his case?
General Zwicker. I will concede that that is the same thing.
Mr. Williams. He asked you to investigate his case?
General Zwicker. That is right.
Mr. Williams. And that was the purpose of his coming to you
February 1, 1954?
General Zwicker. Not his entire purpose.
Mr. Williams. Did he also ask you for a discharge?
General Zwicker. He did.
Mr. Williams. That was the day before he was given the discharge ?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Williams. Did you tell him that you would, in fact, conduct
an investigation of his case?
General Zwicker. I did not.
Mr. Williams. You proceeded to give him his discharge the fol-
lowing day, did you not ?
General Zwicker. I did.
The Chairman. I wonder if you could tell us why you gave the
discharge the following day?
General Zwicker. In accordance with the orders. Senator Watkins,
which required me to discharge this man at his own request and not
later than 90 days.
The Chairman. Did he make the request?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir ; he did.
The Chairman. What did he say ?
General Zwicker. He made two requests for discharge, Mr. Chair-
man. The first request was to the effect that he be discharged 60 days
after receipt of the order, which would have made it the last day of
March 1954.
Immediately subsequent to his appearance before Senator McCar-
thy's meeting, and the morning of February 1, 1954, he came to me in
my office and requested then that he be immediately discharged.
I had no alternative, in accordance with the order which is in your
hands, but complying with his request for an immediate discharge.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 483
The Chairman. And that is what you told him you would do ?
General Zwicker. That is right, sir.
The Chairman. And did you follow through and immediately dis-
charge him?
General Zwicker. I did. He was discharged on the afternoon of
the 2d of February 1954.
The Chairman, You may proceed.
Mr. Williams. Now
The Chairman. Just a moment. Senator Johnson, do you have a
question ?
Senator Johnson. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Senator Johnson. General, what reason did he give for changing
his mind about being discharged 60 days later or the next day ?
General Zwicker. He gave no reason. Senator.
Senator Johnson. And you did not ask him ?
General Zavicker. No. I thought I knew the reason, but I thought
it was quite apparent to me, and I thought it was quite apparent to
him also as to why he wished to expedite his discharge, but he never
stated to me the reason why he wished to expedite his discharge.
Senator Johnson. What did you think his reasons were?
General Zwicker. Because of his appearance before Senator Mc-
Carthy's subcommittee.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. Williams. Now, you produced here this morning. General
Zwicker, a copy of the order pursuant to which you are acting. As
I read it — it is dated January 18, 1954 — in the first paragraph, it
states :
It is desired that Major Irving Peress be relieved from active duty and honor-
ably discharged from the Army at tlie earliest practicable date depending on
oflScers' desires, but in any event not later than 90 days from receipt of this
letter.
That is in paragraph 1.
Now, down to paragraph 5 —
Have you got a copy of it before you ?
General Zwicker. Yes, I have.
Mr. Williams. It says:
a prompt report will be made to this oflSce in the event action cannot be taken
without undue delay.
Now, did you ever make a report to this office when it came to your
attention that Major Peress had taken the fifth amendment before
the subcommittee on January 30, 1954?
General Zwicker. Not to this office. That is not the chain of
command.
Mr. Williams. Did you discuss this case with anyone ?
General Zwicker. After he had requested change?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
General Zwicker. In his discharge?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
General Z^vicker. I did.
Mr. Williams. Well, now, General, do you recall when you ap-
peared on February 18 and testified in Foley Square, in New York,
484 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
in open session, you were asked by Mr. Cohn, who, as you said, con-
ducted himself properly, in relationship to the Peress discharge :
Who did you talk to? You talked to somebody?
General Zwicker. No; I did not.
General Zwicker. That's correct.
Now, please get your question in line and let's stick to
Mr. Williams. All right.
General Zwicker. Exactly what you want.
Mr, Williams. All right, let's read the whole colloquy so there
won't be any question in your mind, or the committee's mind.
I am looking for an explanation from you.
Page 148 :
Who ordered his discharge?
General Zwicker. The Department of the Army.
Who
General Zwicker. Just a minute, please, until I find that place.
Mr. Williams. All right, sir.
Who ordered his discharge?
General Zwicker. The Department of the Army.
The Chairman. The committee would like to know, too, where you
are reading from.
Mr. Williams. From the last part of page 148.
Let me begin with this question from the Chair :
Were you aware that he was being given a discharge on February 2? In
other words, the day he was discharged, were you aware of it?
General Zwicker. Yes ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. Who ordered his discharge?
General Zwicker. The Department of the Army.
The Chairman. Who in the Department?
General Zwicker. That I can't answer.
Mr. CoHN. That isn't a security matter.
General Zwicker. No. I don't know. Excuse me.
Mr. CoHN. Who did you talk to? You talked to somebody?
General Zwicker. No ; I did not.
General Zwicker. I am perfectly happy to answer that, sir.
You are referring to this order. I received no
The Chairman. Just a minute. Wliat order do you mean ? When
you say "this order"
General Zavicker. I am sorry, sir.
The Chairman. That does not mean anything in the record.
General Zwicker. That is the order of release from active duty
and separation from the service.
The Department of the Army.
Who ordered his discharge?
The Department of the Army.
That is this order, sir.
Mr. Williams. Now, he received from you, did he not, on Febru-
ary 2, a signed discharge ?
General Zwicker. I am sorry. Wliat was the question, please?
Mr. Williams. He wasn't discharged until February 2, was he?
General Zwicker. That's right.
Mr. WiLLL^MS. 1954?
General Zwicker. That's right.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 485
Mr. Williams. At that time you handled his discharge, did you not?
General Zwicker. My headquarters, yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. Your headquarters. In other words, you discharged
him ?
General Zwicker. That is right.
Mr. Williams. Did you not ?
General Zwicker. I did.
Mr. Williams. That was what the chairman was asking you about
when he directed your attention to February 2, was it not?
General Zwicker. Yes. I discharged him on the basis of this order,
this Army order.
Mr. WiLLiA]MS. N^ow, directing your attention to February 2
General Z^VICKER. All right.
Mr. Williams. And what happened around that time, you were
asked whom you talked to in the Department of the Army, were you
not?
General Zwicker. Read specifically your quote there, please.
Mr. Williams (reading) :
Were ymi aware that he was being given a discharge on February 2? In other
words, the day he was discharged, were you aware of it?
General Zwicker. Yes ; yes, sir.
General Zwicker. Correct.
Mr. Williams. Now, then, you are asked, are you not :
Who ordered his discharge?
You said :
The Department of the Army.
Who in the Department?
That I can't answer.
Mr. Cohn observes :
That isn't a security matter.
General Zwicker. No. I don't know. Excuse me.
Mr. CoHN. Who did you talk to? You talked to somebody?
General Zwicker. No ; I did not.
Now, when you made that answer, were you referring to something
back on January 18 ?
General Zwicker. No, sir; I was referring to exactly the way the
question was asked, to the Department of the Anny, or anyone con-
nected with the headquarters in Washington.
Mr. Williams. But your testimony is you did talk to somebody on
February 1 ; is that right, about this discharge ?
General Zwicker. Yes. sir; and I will be very happy to clear the
whole matter for you
Mr. Williams. All right.
General Zwicker. In very short order.
Mr. Williams. That is what we want, sir.
General Zwicker. I called the Chief of Staff, First Army, who is
my immediate superior, and informed him that I was going to comply
with this directive and discharge Peress because he had so requested
as soon as possible.
That is the only conversation that I had with anybody.
Mr, Williams. "Who was your Chief of Staff ?
General Zwicker. At that time it was General Murphy.
Mr. Williams. You called him on February 1 ?
486 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
General Zwicker. On February 1.
Mr. Williams. You don't liave any question about your calling him
on that date in your mind ?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
Mr. Williams. Let me direct your attention, General, to your testi-
mony on February 18, page 154. At that time, Avhen you made that
answer — let me direct your attention specifically :
He appeared before the committee on Saturday. On Monday or Tuesday, did
you speak to anybody in the Department of the Army in Washington, telephoni-
cally, about the Peress case? On Monday or Tuesday?
Let me think a minute.
It is possible that I called First Army to inform them that Peress had changed
his mind and desired a discliarge as soon as possible.
Now, is that the conversation you had with Murphy ?
General Zwicker. May I have just a moment to find that, please, sir ?
The Chairman. Is that page 154, Mr. Williams ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. What part of the page?
I don't find it.
Mr. Williams. Down at the bottom, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. We are not as familiar with it as you are.
General Zwicker. Tliat is correct.
Mr. Williams. Is that the conversation you had with General
Gurney ?
General Zwicker. I follow you.
Mr. Williams. I am asking you a question.
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. Are you relating here the conversation you had with
Gurney ?
General Zwicker. I was mistaken in my testimony. In the first
place, I did not say "General Gurney'^ because lie is not a general, and
I was mistaken in thinking I had called Colonel Gurnets who was
Deputy Chief of Staff. It was, in fact, the Chief of Staff, General
Murphy, whom I talked to.
Mr. Williams. I see.
So, when you said you had talked to General Gurney about it you
were in error?
General Zwicker. I was.
Mr. Williams. Now, have you checked up on this since your appear-
ance ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. And you have confirmed with General Murphy that
you talked with him?
General Zwicker. That's right.
Mr. Williams. So that when you gave this testimony on February
18, in which you stated that your testimony was with General Gurney,
that was in error ?
General Zwicker. That's correct.
The Chairman. Mr. Williams, I imagine you may have further
questions of this witness. I think it is about time we should take our
recess.
The committee will be in recess until 2 p. m.
(Whereupon, at 12 : 25 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene
at 2 p. m., of the same day.)
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 487
AFTERNOON SESSION
(The hearing was resumed at 2 : 12 p. m.)
The CiiAiEMAN. The committee will resume session.
Mr. Williams, you may resume your examination.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, sir.
General Zwicker, just before the recess this morning, I had directed
your attention to page 148 of the printed record and I had asked
you whether or not you said, "No, I didn't talk to anyone," you
meant with relationship to the February 2 action which was taken
and you indicated that you did not mean that ; you meant you didn't
talk to anyone with relationship to the January 18 matter; is that
correct ?
General Zwicker. January 18.
Mr. Williams. January 18 is the day on which the order authoriz-
ing you to honorably discharge Irving Peress is dated ?
General Zwicker. I understand.
Mr. Williams. Now, I understand that when this series of ques-
tions at page 148 was asked of you, namely, who did you talk to, you
talketl to somebody ? And you answered, no, I did not — you had refer-
ence to January 18 order?
General Zwicker. That's correct.
Mr. Williams. You had reference to the January 18 matter not-
withstanding the remarks, that the chairman's remarks 2 or 3 ques-
tions previously were directed to the February 2 matter; is that cor-
rect?
General Zwicker. Would you point out specifically in your re-
marks, please?
Mr. Williams. Were you aware that he was being given a discharge
on February 2? In other words, the day he was discharged, were
you aware of it — just two-thirds of the way down.
General Zwicker. I find that.
Mr. W1LLLA.MS, You thought that you were being interrogated
about the January 18 order when you said, no, you did not talk to
anyone, is that right?
General Zwicker. That's correct, yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. Then, over at page 156 — correction, 154 — you re-
lated in response to a question :
It is possible I called First Army to inform them that Peress had changed his
mind and desired a discliarse as soon as possible.
Mr. Cohn then asked you :
Who wonld you have told in the First Army? ^Vlio would you call? G2, or
General Burress?
You knew at this time, I take it. General, that Mr. Cohn was ask-
ing you about what you did on February 1 or 2.
General Zwicker. That's correct.
Mr. Williams. You responded:
I don't think in that case I would call General Burress.
Mr. Cohn said :
General Seabree?
General ZwicKf:R. No. It would have been Gl, or Deputy Chief of Staff.
488 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
And then Mr. Colin said :
Who is that?
You responded :
General Gurney.
Then Mr. Cohn said :
You don't remember which one it wasV
And you, General Zwicker, said :
I don't recall that I called.
i)idn't you remember that you had made a call to General Murphy
when you gave that answer?
General Zwicker. I did not remember specifically at that time.
Mr. Williams. Wlien did your recollection improve on that,
General ?
General Zwicker. My recollection did not improve.
The fact of the matter is, if you will permit me to finish my answer,
that General Murphy called me later and said :
It was I whom you called at First Army Headquarters —
and I said —
Yes, Jack, that's correct.
I did not speak to Colonel Gurney.
Mr. Williams. Then, that is precisely what my question is directed
to. General. I am anxious to know when your recollection was re-
freshed to the extent that you remembered that you did talk to General
Murj^hy about this.
General Zwicker. Well, it was
Mr. Williams. I say, when, sir?
General Zwicker. Within 2 or 3 days, I would say, following your
February 18.
Mr. Williams. In other words
General Zwicker. Pardon me; 2 or 3 days following February 2.
Excuse me.
Mr. Williams. Two or three days following February 2 ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. On that occasion, on February 4 or 5, General Mur-
phy called you and you said, "General, you called me regarding the
Irving Peress case" ; is that right ?
General Zwicker. That is substantially correct ; yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. That was 2 weeks before you even appeared before
the McCarthy connnittee.
Why did he call you and undertake to refresh your recollection on
something that had taken place only 3 days before ?
General Zwicker. I am not sure of the date that the conversation
between General Murphy and I took place, at which time he informed
me and refreshed my memory to exactly whom I had spoken to at
First Army.
It may have been 2 or 3 days, Mr. Williams. It may have been at
a later date.
Mr. Williams. But at any rate, you fix it before your a|)pearance
before the committee?
General Zwicker. I believe so; yes, sir.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 489
Mr. Williams. Then that raised the question in my mind, and I
hope you can help us on this, sir. How did General Murphy know at
that time that your recollection had faded with respect to your con-
versation with him regarding the Peress case i
General Zwicker. I don't know.
Mr. Williams. In other words, he just called you and said, "Re-
member, General, you talked to me about the Peress case," and that
was before you testified in the McCarthy case, and that was before
there was any evidence that your recollection had failed on this
subject.
Is that correct?
General Zwicker. It may be, Mr. Williams.
I intimated just a moment ago that the timing as to when General
Murphy called me, or I was aware it was General Murphy, may have
been subsequent to the eighteenth hearing.
I am not positive as to whether it was before the hearing, or after
the hearing. I believe that I could find out.
Mr. Williams. But you did have a conversation with General
Murphy wherein your recollection was refreshed about this conversa-
tion that you had theretofore with him.
General Zwicker. It was.
Mr. Williams. Now, how was it that you did not remember this,
General, when Mr. Cohn asked you about it on the 18th?
General Zwicker. That, I can't answer.
Mr. Williams. In other words, you are just not able to help us on
why you did not disclose that you had conversed with General Murphy
at that time other than to say you just didn't remember ?
General Zwicker. That's correct. I was not clear at the time I was
answering Mr. Cohn's questions, in my mind, as to whom I had talked
with at First Army.
Mr. Williams. The fact of the matter is, you told Mr. Cohn that
you did not recall that you had even called ?
General Zwicker. I think
Mr. Williams. Anyone ?
General Zwicker. I think, if you will read the few lines prior to
that, that I said that I had called someone and I thought it was as
quoted here. General Gurney.
]\Ir. Williams. Let's read that. General, so we will see the full text
of this because I think it is important, as you know :
Mr. Cohn. Who would yon have told in thp First Army? Who would you
callV G-2 or General BurressV
General Zwicker. I dont think in that case I would call General Burress.
Mr. Cohn. General Seabree?
General Zwicker. No. It would have been G-1 or Deputy Chief of Staff.
Mr. Cohn. Who is that?
General Zwicker. General Gurney.
Mr. Cohn. You don't remember which one it was?
General Zwicker. I don't recall that I called.
Now, was that your best recollection at that time?
General Zwicker. That is my best recollection.
Mr. Williams. In other words, at that time you did not recall that
you had talked to General Murphy, and you also did not recall that
you had called anyone ?
490 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
General Zwicker. That is the way it appears in the record, and that
is the way — that's it.
Mr. Williams. Now, comino; to this order of January 18, 1954, sir,
about which there was so much conversation this morning, in that
order — and I direct your attention. General, to the last sentence of
paragi'aph 5, which reads as follow^s :
A prompt report will be made to this office in the event action cannot be taken
without undue delay.
General Zwicker. Riglit.
Mr. Williams. Now-, that indicated to you that if anything arose
which appeared to call for a delay in the discharge of Irving Peress,
you should call the Adjutant General's office, did it not?
General Zwicker. It meant just what it said, sir — a promjit report
would be made to this office, "in the event action cannot be taken
without undue delay" — action.
Mr. Williams. Did that suggest to you. General, that in the event
some incident arose which appeared to be a reason precluding you
from taking action, you should call the Adjutant General ?
General Zwicker. It did not occur to me that I would be contra-
vening in any way any of the paragraphs, of 1, 2, 3, or 4 of that order.
Mr. Williams. I am asking you about paragraph 5, now.
General Zwicker. That is part of my ansAver to your question, sir.
Mr. Williams. Well, paragraph 5 is part of the answer, too, is it
not?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Williams. And that is just as effective as the first, isn't it?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Williams. And tliat tells you to call the Adjutant General if
anything arises precluding your action, doesn't it, sir?
General Zwicker. "In the event action cannot be taken without
undue delay." That is correct.
Mr. Williams. Well, now^, when Irving Peress came to you, sir,
on February 1, and asked you to investigate him, did that occur to
you as a reason to get in touch with The Adjutant General and discuss
with him whether or not Peress should be discharged ?
General Zw^icker. No, sir.
Mr. Williams. When a Senator of the United States, as chairman
of the Government Operations Committee, wrote the Secretary of
the Army and suggested that this man be court-martialed, did that
suggest itself to you, sir, as a reason why you might call The Adju-
tant General and ask him whether you should discharge Irving Peress
the next day?
General Zwicker. I received no such communication, and no such
communication from any higher authority.
Mr. Williams. You knew, did you not, sir, on February 1, that
there had been a request made by the chairman of the Senate com-
mittee, that a man in your command be court-martialed?
General Zwicker. I was aware that the Senate — that the chaimian
of the committee had been in contact, and had written to or conversed
with Secretary of the Army relative to this person ; yes.
Mr. Williams. And you knew, did you not. General, that he had
asked, and that it was widely reported in the press, for Irving Peress's
court-martial; did you not?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 491
General Zwicker. I am not certain that I did.
Mr. Williams. Well, now, you read everything in the press?
General Zwicker. No ; I did not read everything in the press.
Mr. Williams. Well, you read the story about Irving Peress in
the press ; did you not ?
General Zwicker. I did.
Mr. Williams. And you were aware of the press accounts of his
testimony on January 30, 1954, and the action taken by the chairman
of the committee after his testimony; were you not?
General Zwicker. Yes.
Mr. Williams. And you knew, did you not, that there had been
a request by the chairman of the committee to the Secretary of the
Army that court-martial proceedings be instituted? You knew that;
didn't you?
General Zwicker. I imagine that I must have ; yes.
Mr. Williams. Yes ; you must have heard about it.
Well, now, didn't it occur to you, General, on February 1, 1954,
that maybe you should call The Adjutant General's Office and discuss
with hiin the fact that a court-martial had been requested of one
of the men in your command, before you proceeded to discharge him
on February 2?
General Zwicker. I would like to correct you on one statement.
1 did not hurry anyone's discharge at any time.
Mr. Williams. You discharged him the next day; did you not ^
General Zwicker. At his request, as delineated specifically in this
order.
Mr. WiLLiA3is. But you did not call The Adjutant General, as de-
lineated specifically in this order, in paragraph 5, in the event that
anything should arise ?
General Zwicker. I
Mr. Williams. Just let me finish this question, please, sir. In the
event anything should arise, which should be cause for delaying the
action.
General Zwicker. May I call your attention — just a minute.
Colonel Johnson. If the Chair please, the difficulty comes in coun-
sel's paraphrasing the statement. I think he should be required to take
the statement in context.
Mr. Williams. I will adopt your suggestion. Colonel. I shall read
what appears in my copy :
A prompt report will be made to this oflBce in the event that action cannot be
taken without undue delay.
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. Now, did you communicate at any time on February
1 or 2 with that office ?
General Zwicker. I did not, for this reason. This order is addressed,
not to me; it is addressed to the commanding general. First Army;
and any reply of that nature would of necessity would have to be
made by the commanding general of the First Army wlio was hx-ated
at Governors Island, and who was my immediate superior, and not
directly by me.
Mr. Williams. So that is it you opinion, General Zwicker, as com-
manding general of Camp Kilmer, that there was nothing you could do
in the face of this order except to give Peress his discharge on Febru-
ary 2?
52461 — 54 32
492 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Williams. Then, General, why did you testify on February 18
that if you had received the report the niffht before he was to be dis-
charged that he had stolen $50; that he would not have been dis-
charged? Wliy did you testify that way on February 18?
General Zwicker. If you can show me that in the testimony, I would
appreciate it.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir: on page 1.50, the first quarter of the page
where the chairman said :
Let us say he went out and stole $50 the night before.
General Zwicker. He wouldn't have been discharged.
General Zwicker. I am trying to find that page, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. It is in the top quarter of page 150. I will come
over and point it out, if you wish.
General Zwicker. I think I am with you, Mr. Williams. Your ques-
tion, please?
Mr. Williams. If you are with me, will you answer the question,
please ?
General Zwicker. May I have it again, please ?
Mr. Williams. Will you read it back to him, sir ?
I will restate it if you wish.
General Zwicker. That will be satisfactory,
Mr. Williams. I said to you. General, if you were powerless to act,
sir, under this order of January 18, as you have just indicated to us,
why did you testify on February 18 that if a report had come to you
that Peress had gone out and stolen $50 the night before, he wouldn't
have been discharged?
General Zwicker. Because whoever it may have been that had
stolen the $50, or any other hypothetical question such as that, was
still under my jurisdiction for an offense that had not been thoroughly
evaluated, passed on, and orders issued relative to his disposition.
I would then have, by all means, taken steps to see whether or not
the $50 was stolen was a fact and would certainly not have separated
him, or anyone else until this was definitely established as to his guilt
or innocence.
In this case, the case cited by this order, the reasons for which Major
Peress was discharged had been completely digested by the authority
superior to mine.
They had determined that he was to be discharged, not me.
Mr. Williams. Now, General, as I understand it, this order, then,
was not an ironclad order which blocked you from the exercise of your
sound discretion?
General Z\^'^CKER. It was.
Mr, Williams. Didn't you just say, sir, that if a matter arose which
had not been thoroughly investigated in your opinion, you could hold
up the man's discliarge?
General Zwicker. I will qualify my statement, Mr. Williams.
It was in every respect covered by the order, and for every purpose
for which this order was written.
Mr. Williams. Now, the fact that the chairman of a Senate com-
mittee called for the court-martial of Peress was not, in your opinion,
the basis for calling the Attorney General's Office and discussing the
applicability of paragraph 5; is that right?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 493
(At this point General Zwicker conferred with his counsel.)
General Zwicker. I would have to answer that, Mr. Williams, by
stating, or restating, that I did call the representative of the com-
manding general. First Aniiy, to wdiom this order was addressed, and
stated to him that I was about to separate Major Peress under the
provisions of this order, which had been passed down to me.
Mr. Williams. Now, General, you just made a statement that ex-
cites my interest. I want to ask you about it. You said that all of
the information on Irving Peress had been investigated and had been
tlioroughly digested.
On February 18, directing your attention to page 152 of the record,
the second quarter of the way down, beginning with "General
Zwicker," you said :
Because, Mr. Senator, auy iuformation that appeared in the press or any
releases was well known to me and well known to plenty of other people long
prior to the time that you ever called this man for investigation, and there were
no facts or no allegations, nothing presented from the time that he appeared
before your first investigation that was not apparent prior to that time.
And the chairman asked you :
In other words, as you sat here this morning and listened to the testimony,
you heard nothing new?
Mr. CoHN. Nothing substantially new?
General ZwacKER. I don't believe so.
The Chairman. So that all of these facts were known at the time he was
ordered to receive an honorable discharge?
(jeneral Zwicker. I believe they are all on record; yes. sir.
Now, General, that morning of February 18, you had sat in that
Foley Square courtroom and you had heard the testimony of a
policewoman named Ruth Eagle, had you not?
General Zwicker. Yes ; I had.
Mr. Williams. And she had identified Irving Peress as a section
leader of the Communist Party, had she not ?
General Zwicker. She so testified.
Mr. Williams. And then you heard the testimony of Irving
I'eress, had you not?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. And you had heard him take the fifth amendment
eacli time he was asked anything relating to Communist activities,
had you not ?
General Zwicker. Correct.
Mr. Williams. Your testimony was that afternoon that all of
these things were known before the discharge was ordered for Peress ?
General Zwicker. My testimony then, and it will remain un-
changed now, is exactly as it appears in the transcript.
Mr. WiLLL^MS. So, then, General. I assume that it would remain
exactly as it appears in the transcript when you said, at page 151,
that you were never officially informed by anyone that Peress was
a part of the Communist conspiracy, would it not?
Tlie Chairman. Wliere is that?
Mr. Williams. It is about one-third of the way down, Mr. Chair-
man.
General Zwicker. That is what my testimony indicates; yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. Well, now. General, didn't you testify at page
152 that all of the facts that you had heard, all of the facts that you
494 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
]iad heard on the morning of Fehniary 18 were of record loni* before
the Peress decision was made, and wasn't it of record that morning
that Peress was named as a section leader in the Communist con-
spiracy, and didn't yon also answer that day. General, that you
were never officially informed by anyone that he was part of the
Communist conspiracy?
The Chairman. Mr. Williams, I notice so many of your questions
have more th.-n one question contained in them. Wliy not ask one
question at a time?
It is difficult to follow and I think the witness cannot answer you
properly if you put several questions in one.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Cliairman. if I am <?uilty of that offense, I shall
attempt not to repeat it, but what I am trying to do is to point out to
the general portions of his testimony on February 18 which appear
to conflict with each other, and I don't know how to do that Avithout
introducing two prior questions, questions of February 18, and ask
him to explain the apparent inconsistency in them.
General Zwicker. Now, Mr. Williams, you will recall the testimony
which you have reread from the transcript that I said :
Mr. Senator, any information that appeared in tlie press or any releases was
well known to me, and well known to plenty of other people long prior to the
time.
and so forth.
You will also note that I said :
I believe they are all on record ; yes, sir.
My intent there, of course, was not to include, as a fact, any allega-
tions tliat have been made by persons that morning, as obviously I
would have no way of knowing whether or not any allegation was made
against Major Peress, during the morning session, was, in fact, correct.
Mr. Williams. Then why did you say they were ?
General Zwicker. Pardon?
Mr. Williams. Then wdiy did you say they were?
General Zwicker. I don't believe that I did.
Mr. Williams. Let us look at the record, then, General.
The Chairman. In other words, as you sat here this morning and listened
to the testimony, you heard nothing new?
Mr. CoHN. Nothing substantially new?
General Zwicker. I don't believe so.
General Zwtlcker. That is correct.
Mr. Williams (reading) :
The Chairman. So that all of these facts were known at the time he was
ordered to receive an honorable discharge?
General Zwicker. I believe they are all on record ; yes, sir.
Now, didn't you say, sir, on February 18, that, in your best opinion,
everything you heard tliat morning was of record in the Army files at
the time the decision was made?
(At tliis point General Zwicker conferred with Colonel Johnson.)
Colonel Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could request coun-
sel to rephrase his question. I think we can answer it, but the way
it is worded now, it refers to tlie files, concerning which General
Zwicker cannot testify.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 495
I think that counsel can no doubt get the answer that he wants with-
out going into that, if he could rephrase the question.
Mr. Williams. I think I phrased the question perfectly properly,
Mr. Chairman.
He has already testified concerning wliat is of record here on Febru-
ary 18. I liave asked him now whether or not
Colonel Johnson. You are talking now about what is of file and
what is of record, and what is of record and Avhat is of files may be
two different things.
Mr. "Williams. Well, would you please explain that to me, Colonel ?
I am not versed in these matters and I don't understand.
Colonel Johnson. I suppose
Mr. Williams. I don't understand what is not in the files that is
on the record, and what is on the record that is not in the files in a
matter such as this.
Now. I may be able to clear up my question if you tell me what you
have in mind.
Colonel Johnson. If you are referring by files to military person-
nel files, then General Zwicker cannot testify concerning the contents
of those files.
Mr. Williams. Then I will stick to the record.
The Chairman. Let him finish.
Have you finished?
Colonel Johnson. I think that
Mr. Williams. I will stick to the record.
Question :
So that all of these facts were known at the time he was ordered to receive
an honorable discharge?
General Zwicker. I believe they are all on record ; yes, sir.
Now, I ask you this question. General, and I am going to ask you to
help us in this matter, and please take all the time you need :
If all these things were of record, if all of these matters that Ruth
Eagle testified to were of record, why did you say you never had been
officially informed by anyone that Peress was a part of the Communist
conspiracy ?
General Zwicker. Mr. Williams, I don't believe that anywhere
you will find specifically that I said what was testified to by Miss
Eagle, or anyone else in the morning, was a matter of record, but I
believe that is not a material point.
Mr. Williams. Well, I think
The Chairman. Let him finish.
Did you finish ?
General Zwicker. Beg pardon ?
The Chairman. You can finish your answer.
General Zwtcckeb. I was referring to at least include all matters on
which higher authority than I based the action which resulted in the
letter — subject: Relief From Active Duty and Separation From the
Service.
Mr. Williams. Well, in your answer, you just said that you didn't
believe you had testified that everything you had heard that morning,
the morning of February 18, 1954, was of record. Now, I think you
did testify to that, and I want to ask you about it.
496 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Please look at your copy of the testimony, page 152 — an,d, so that
you will know just where I am beginning, I am going to ask you to
come down about a third of the way down the page, beginning with
"The Chairman" :
In other words, you sat here this morning and listened to the testimony, you
heard nothing new?
Cohn interceded, saying :
Nothing substantially new?
General Zwicker. I don't believe so.
The Chairman. So that all of these facts —
obviously referring to the facts testified to in the morning —
were known at the time he was ordered to receive an honorable discharge?
General Zwicker. I believe they are all on record ; yes, sir.
Now, didn't you say, General
General Zwicker. Yes, sir
Mr, Williams. Is that not a fair inference from your testimony, sir^
that all of those things that you heard that morning of February 18
about Peress were of record in the Army ?
General Zwicker. I believe that the inference to be made from the
testimony that I gave that morning is exactly as it is given in the
transcript.
The question, not asked b}' the Senator, but asked by Mr. Cohn, was :
Nothing substantially new?
To which I replied :
I don't believe so.
The next question was :
So that all of these facts were known at the time he was ordered to receive
an honorable discharge?
To which I replied :
I believe they are all on record ; yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. Now, did you regard the testimony of a New York
policewoman who named Irving Peress as a section leader in the Com-
munist Party as substantial ?
General Zwicker. I did.
Mr. Williams. Well, then, that wasn't you, was it, General?
General Zwicker. I don't knew whether it was me or not. •
Mr. Williams. Well, you regarded it as substantial, and you said
there was nothing substantiall}^ new.
So you must not have i-egarded Ruth Eagle's testimony as substan-
tially new. Is that not right ?
General Zwicker. I woulchi't know.
Mr. Williams. Well, can^t you help us on that, General ?
We are trying to get the facts here now.
(At this point General Zwicker conferred with his counsel.)
General Zwicker. I will try and give you a better answer, Mr.
Williams.
Mr. Williams. All right.
General Zwicker. In my answer to you, or in this testimony, sub-
stantially new — I was not, of course, referring by the word "substan-
tially" to any one person's specific testimony, whether it be Miss Eagle's
or anvone else.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 497
I was trying to convey the impression to Senator McCarthy and
the other members of his committee that the record, as it stood and as
it was known to me, and it was known to higher authority, would have
been unchanged insofar as the promulgation of this order was con-
cerned by anything that was given that morning.
Mr. Williams. Well, do you see, General, as we sit and discuss this,
how you appeared to have been quite inconsistent there ?
General Z wicker. No, sir ; I don't.
Mr. Williams. You don't see that ?
General Zwicker. I do not.
Mr. Williams. Thank you.
Now, General, I want to ask you whether or not this statement, at
page 151 — again, I have to take you down one-third of the page :
General Zwicker. I was never officially informed by anyone that he was part
of the Communist conspiracy. Mr. Senator.
Was that a correct statement ?
(At this point General Zwicker conferred with his counsel.)
General Zwicker. As a positive fact ; yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. Now, did you have in mind, when you have in mind,
when you made that statement, the records about which you were talk-
ing over in the colloquy to which we have just addressed your atten-
tion ?
General Zwicker. Yes ; I believe I did.
Mr. Williams. Now, if the records showed that the man was a
Communist, would you regard that as official information?
General Zwicker. Your question, if the record showed that he was
a Communist?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. If there was evidence that he was a Com-
munist and that, when asked about it, he had taken the fifth amend-
ment, would you regard that as official information ?
General Zwicker. I don't believe that I had access to any records
that ever had proven that this man was a Communist.
Mr. Williams. Well, I want to go back to the question I asked you.
My question was this :
If the record showed that the man had been identified under oath by a witness
as being a member of the Communist Party, and the record showed that when
asked aliout that, he had talien the fiftli amendment, would you regard that as
official information that he was a Communist?
General Zwicker. If it had been transmitted to me ; yes.
Mr. Williams. If you knew about it, would you regard it
General Zwicker. Not as official ; no, sir.
Mr. WiLLiA3is. Wouldn't it be official ?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
Mr. AYiLLiAMS. So that when you used the word "official," you were
qualifying what you had said; is that right?
You didn't mean to suggest that you had never been informed ?
General Zwicker. That's correct.
Mr. Williams. You meant you had never been officially informed ;
is that right?
General Zwicker. That's correct.
Mr. Williams. So that before you could take any action, it was
necessary to get official information?
General Zwicker. Yes.
498 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. It wouldn't make any difference if the records of
the United States Army contained this unless those records were offi-
cially transmitted to yon, yon would not take any cognizance of them?
( The witness conferred with his counsel. )
General Zwt;cker. Would you please state your question again ?
Mr. Williams. So it will be completely accurate, I will ask the
reporter to read it back.
(The reporter read the question referred to as follows : "It wouldn't make any
difference if the records of the United States Army contained this unless those
records were officially transmitted to you, you would not tiike any cognizance of
them?")
General Zwicker. I would take cognizance of none other than
official records.
Mr. Williams. I am talking about the records that you talked about
at page 152, when you said, I believe they are all on record. T nm
talking about that record.
General Zwicker. All right.
Mr. Williams. Now^, is that an official record ?
General Z\vicker. It is.
Mr. Williams. Well, then, and you knew about that record ?
General Z^vicker. I certainly did.
Mr. Williams. Then it was officially known to you, then, was it
not, that Peress was a Communist ?
General Zwicker. The contents of those records are officially known
to me. Their contents I am not privileged to divulge.
Mr. Williams. But you testified about these records on February
18 when you said you never w'ere officially informed by anyone that
he was part of the Communist conspiracy, and when you said that
everything that had been testified to in the morning session at Foley
Square were of record in these official records; didn't you testify
about them then?
General Zwicker. I testified to that and there may be some in the
Department of the Army and other places that may think I was in
error in so doing.
Mr. Williams. In other words, yon don't feel that you can testify
today about them ; is that right ?
General Zwicker. I do not ; I may not testify to anything.
Mr. Williams. You can't tell us today whether this statement that
you made on February 18 is the fact or not, namely :
I was never officially informed by anyone that he was part of the Communist
conspiracy.
General Zwicker. The record speaks for itself, Mr. Williams. I
would not like to
Mr. Williams. "Wliat I am trying to find out, General, is whether
or not you can state today whether that was an accurate statement
or not.
General Zwicker. I consider that to be just as accurate today as
it was then.
Mr. Williams. But that is not the answer. General. I don't know
how accurate you considered it to be then.
General Zavicker. I would not have made it unless I expected it
to be accurate.
Mr. Williams. You see nothing inconsistent between that answer
and the answer that you gave later saying that all the facts developed
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 499
at Foley Square when Euth Eao;le testified and when Irving Peress
took the fifth amendment were of record and that you still never had
any official knowledge that this man was a Communist. You feel
there is no inconsistency there ?
General Zwicker. It is a right long question.
Mr. Williams. I will state it again ; I will state it slowly.
General Zwigker. Take it one step at a time.
Mr. Williams. I say, you see no inconsistency, you see no incon-
sistency in saying on the one hand, "I had no official information that
Irving Peress was a Communist," and on the other hand saying that
the Army record showed all the information testified to on Februaiy
18, 1954, which included identification by a New York undercover
agent of the police department, named Peress as a Communist, and
which included Peress' denial or Peress' invocation of the fifth amend-
ment. Do you see nothing inconsistent between saying, I have no
official information he was a Communist and, on the other hand,
saying I knew what was in the record of the Army which contained
these things that I have just outlined ?
General Zwicker. I don't believe that I have indicated specifically
that the information or the testimony given in the open hearing in
the morning was under any circumstances known to me. Prior to
the time that it was given in court. I am speaking specifically as
you have about the Eagle testimony.
The Chairman. Just a moment. Let him finish his answer.
Have you finished your answer ?
General Zwicker. Yes.
The Chairman. All right, proceed.
Mr. Williams. Now, let's see. General, whether or not you did
indicate that this was known to you.
Didn't the chairman ask you, in other words, as you sat here this
morning and listened to the testimony, you heard nothing new, and
you said, I know nothing substantially new.
Mr. Cohn said, "Nothing substantially new ?"
You said, "I don't believe so."
You were then talking about what you knew, were you not?
General Zwicker. I again direct your attention to the fact that I
said, "substantially new."
Mr. Williams. But you were talking then about what you knew,
■were you not ?
General Zwicker. Yes.
Mr. Williams. And he was asking whether or not you heard any-
thing substantially new when you heard Ruth Eagle testify in the
morning that this man was a Communist section leader, and when
you heard Irving Peress say he took the fifth amendment.
He was asking what you knew then, wasn't he ?
General Zwicker. Will you repeat the last part?
Mr. Williams. Yes. The chairman was asking you then, when
he directed that question to you, about what you knew, not what was
of record, and you said that you heard nothing substantially new, did
you not ?
General Zwicker. That's correct.
Mr. Williams. And you had heard Eagle's testimony and Peress's
testimony ?
General Zwicker. I had.
500 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. So that the fair statement is that you knew these
thinijs, did you not, General, as well as the record?
General Zw^CKER. The statement made is still the same. There
had been nothing substantially new that I had not known about
prior to this time that was introduced in that morning's testimony.
Mr, Williams, So that we may conclude from that, may we not,
that you knew that was developed that morning, and the record shows
what was developed that morning, did it not?
General Zwicker. You may make that conclusion,
Mr. Williams. Well, I am asking you, sir; is that a fact?
General Zwicker. The facts are as stated in my testimony here, to
the best of my belief.
Mr. Williams. Well, then, I will ask you the question : You did
hear nothing substantially new that morning, did you?
Genera] Zwicker. That is right.
Mr. Williams. And you heard nothing which was not of record
that morning, did you ?
General Zwicker. If you are alluding to the record as it appeared
in the press and press releases, and differentiating from the files to
wdiicli I have access, then I would say you are correct.
Mr. Williams. Well, when you used the tenn "I believe are on
record," you were not referring to the press releases, were you?
General Zwicker. I am trying, sir, to give you as much informa-
tion as I can, under the restrictions under which I am acting; and
I hope that you understand that I can give nothing — no informa-
tion— that has anything at all to do with certain files.
Mr. Williams. I see. Now, I will ask you the question again,
General.
General Zwicker. All right.
Mr. Williams. When you said, "I believe they are on record," you
were referring to press releases, w ere you not ?
General Zwicker, No, but I certainly was referring to the testimony
that had been given.
Mr. Williams. You do not mean to say. General, that when you
said in response to the chairman's question :
So that all these facts were known at the tiioe he was ordered to receive an
honorable discharge —
you implied that there were all on record, that you referred to press
releases ?
General Zwicker. No, I do not want to create that impression.
Mr. Williams. You were referring to the record?
General Zwicker. I was refei'ring to the record; yes.
Mr. Williams. Now, General, you had talked to John Adams before
you testified, February 18, had you not ?
General Zwicker. I had.
Mr. Williams. You had talked to John Adams between the time
that you talked to either Anastos or Juliana
General Zwicker. Yes.
Mr. Williams. And the time you testified?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Williams. You talked to John Adams in some detail the day
before, did you not ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 501
General Zwicker. In very little detail. No, sir. I talked to Mr.
Adams on the afternoon of February 17.
Mr. WiLi.iAMS. Now, at page 158 of the testimony there were ques-
tions directed to you concerning' the honorable discharge of Irving
Peress ; and, right at the bottom of the page, you were asked :
Have you discussed that matter with Mr. Adams?
You answered:
As a person, no, sir.
What did you mean by that?
General Zwicker. I meant exactly what I said. I did not discuss
the honorable discharge of Mr. Peress w^ith Mr. Adams, neither did I
receive from him or anyone else at First Army level or Department of
the Army level any directives as to what I was to testify to, or about
any action I was to take under this order, except for the order itself.
Mr. Williams. Now, General, before leaving this record of the
testimony, I was a litble disturbed this morning lest maybe I had
jumped too far from page 146 to 147, after Senator Stennis called
my attention to that.
I wanted to ask you just 2 or 3 questions with relation to your
answers therein contained.
Now, so that you will know exactly what I am talking about, I call
your attention to the very bottom of page 146. The chairman asked
you this question :
The day the honorable discharge was signed, were you aware of the fact that
he had appeared before our committee?
You answered :
I was.
The Chairman. And had refused to answer certain questions?
You answered :
No, sir ; not specifically on answering any questions. I knew that he had
appeared before your committee.
Well, now. General, when you made that answer, you knew per-
fectly well, did you not, that at the time Peress got his honorable
discharge, you knew that he had refused to answer questions before
the committee ?
General Zwicker. I did not loiow or specifically recall questions
which Peress was alleged to have bfeen asked during his hearing. I
was, of course, generally aware of the fact that communistic activity
was the basis for his examination, and that he had refused to answer
questions relative to that activity.
Mr. Williams. So, then, General, do you think it was a completely
candid answer for you, sir, to say, when you were asked whether you
knew that he had refused to answer certain questions :
No, sir, not specifically on answering any questions. I knew that he had
appeared before your committee.
Do you think that was a fully candid answer. General?
General Zwicker. I will permit you to interpret that, sir.
Mr. WiiJ^iAMS. You have no comment on that?
General Zwicker. No comment.
502 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. Then I direct your attention to page 147 at the top,
where the chairman asked you this question:
And you knew, generally, that he had refused to tell whether he was a Com-
munist; did you not?
And you answered:
I don't recall whether he refused to tell whether he was a CJoniinunist.
Do you think that is a completely candid answer?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir; I do. Definitely.
Mr. Williams. You do?
General Zwicker. Yes.
Mr. WiLLiAJMS. Is it your testimony, General, that at the time Peress
was discharged you honestly did not know that he had refused to tell
the committee that he was a Communist?
General Zwicker. I don't know about that, sir.
Mr. Williams. Well, that is the question.
General Zwicker. The question as it was stated there :
And you knew, generally, that he had refused to tell whether he was a Com-
munist ; did you not?
My answer was :
I don't recall whether he refused to tell whether he was a Communist.
Mr. Williams. But you did know, didn't you. General?
General Zwicker. That is not the question, sir.
Mr. Williams. Well, would j'^ou please enlighten me on this, because
I don't understand what you mean, sir?
General Zwicker. You seem to be making a point out of the specific
question asked by the chairman and my answer to the question, the
question being :
And you knew generally that he had refused to tell whether he was a Com-
munist; did you not?
And my answci- :
I don't recall whether he refused to tell whether he was a Communist.
Mr. Williams. But, General, you knew perfectly well
The Chairman. That is not the question, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. It certainly is the question. He said he didn't
recall it, and he was not being truthful under oath.
The Chairman. The answer is:
I don't recall whether he refused to tell whetlier he was a Communist.
Let US put the emphasis on "tell."
Mr. WnxiAMs. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that you are taking that
answer and by virtue of the fact that you misunderstand it
The Chairman. Maybe I do. You asked him what he knew and
he replies that he was talking about whether he refused to tell.
Mr. WiLLLVMs. I am talking about whether he knew that Peress
had refused to tell, and I am asking him now : "Didn't you know at the
time that you discharged him that he refused to tell that he was a
Communist?"
General Zwicker. I answered that question :
I don't recall whether he refused to tell whether he was a Communist.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 503
And I am, of course, again referring to his appearance on that
morning.
Mr. Williams. Yes. The fact is that you did recall very well at
this time that he had refused to tell whether he was a Communist.
General Zwicker. If I had, I would not have answered it in the
manner in which I did. I answered the question :
I don't recall whether he refused to tell whether he was a Communist.
Mr. Williams. In other words, you are testifying here today that,
in fact, did not know, and didn't recall on February 18 whether
Peress had refused to tell the subcommittee that he was a Com-
munist ?
General Zwicker. No, that is not quite correct.
Mr. WilLiams. What is quite correct ?
General Zwicker. You will find also in the testimony that I was
aware that Major Peress took refuge in the fifth amendment and that
he refused to answer almost every question, I believe, put to him by
the committee and took refuge in the fifth amendment.
I do not recall, Mr. Williams, any questions that would ask specifi-
cally whether or not he refused to tell whether he was a Communist,
and to clarify my thought on that, I say again that, in my opinion,
my recollection of listening to him testify, whenever he was addressed
such a question as, "Are you a Communist?" or "Were you a Com-
munist?" he made no answer.
He said :
I refuse to answer under the provisions of the fifth amendment.
Now, that is my opinion, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. You did not think that he had invoked the fifth
amendment on any other such matter than communism, did you?
General Zwicker. I was not thinking for Major Peress.
Mr. Williams. No, but you were thinking for General Zwicker
when you were answering these questions.
General Zwicker. I am right now, indeed.
Mr. Williams. And it never occurred to you at any time that Major
Peress had invoked the fifth amendment on any other subject than his
communism, his Communist activities ?
General Zwicker. I would doubt it.
Mr. Williams. So, then, he invoked the fifth amendment and when
he did you assume it was about his Communist activities?
General Zwicker. I testified, Mr. Williams, as I repeated, sir, that
I do not recall, or did not recall, at that time whether he refused to tell
whether he was a Communist.
Mr. Williams. Now, I want to call your attention. General, to what
you said on direct examination in this caucus room this morning, and
lest there be any question about it, I am going to ask the reporter to get
the transcript and see if I did not ask you whether or not, as of Febru-
ary 1, when you discharged Peress, you did not know that he had
refused to answer questions on communism before the subcommittee.
Your answer was yes, you knew it.
Do you remember making that answer this morning?
General Zwicker. Substantially I do ; yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. Well, then, did you forget it between February 1 of
1954, and February 18, 1954?
General Zwicker, No.
504 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. WiLLiA:\rs. Well, then, why did you give the next answer that
you gave — and I am now directing your attention to the middle of
page 147, where you said :
I believe I remember reading in the paper that he had taken refuge in the fifth
amendment to avoid answering questions before the committee.
The Chairmax. About communism?
General Zwickkr. I am not too certain about that.
Do you see, General, that there is an inconsistency there ?
General Zwicker. I do not. That may be your interpretation.
Mr. Williams. Would you think it was an unreasonable interpreta-
tation, sir, for an examiner to feel that your testimony this morning
was inconsistent with that ?
General Zwicker. That would be his privilege.
Mr. Williams. Would it also be his privilege, sir, to vigorously
cross-examine if he saw that inconsistency ?
General Zwicker. It would.
Mr. Williams. I want to call your attention again. General, to page
147, about three-fourths of the way down. The chairman asked you :
Did you Ivnow that he refused to answer questions about his Communist
activities?
General Zwicker. Specifically, I don't believe so.
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr, Williams. Now, do you see anything inconsistent between that
and what you testified to this morning. General ?
General Zwicker. No, sir; I don't.
Mr. Williams. Do you remember a conversation that you had with
General Lawton in December 1953 ?
General Zwicker. I do not.
Mr. Williams. You have no recollection of a conversation with him ?
General Zwicker. Oh, yes, indeed ; I remember talking to General
Lawton.
Mr. Williams. Do you recall talking to General Lawton about Sen-
ator McCarthy ?
General Zwicker, I do not,
Mr, Williams. You have no recollection of that at all ?
General Zwiciver. None whatsoever.
Mr. Williams. Would you deny you did. General (
General Zwicker. Yes ; I would.
Mr. Williams. You would deny
General Zwicker. Oli, I am sorry: I don't deny it: no, sir.
Mr. Willia:ms. You would not deny it ^
General Zwicker. No.
Mr. Williams. But you don't recall ?
General Zwicker. I have no recollection of any word of any kind
that passed between General Lawton and I at the time he was present
at Camp Kilmer for another matter.
Mr. Williams. Do you recall sitting in the audience at Foley Square,
General, and listening to the testimony of Peress and Ruth Eagle?
General Zwicker. I do.
Mr. Williams. I believe you testified this morning that you didiTi
remember whether or not, or you couldn't recall, or didn't recall,
whether or not you had used tlie epithet that was attributed to you
by Mr. Harding ; is that right ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 505
General Zwicker. That is right.
Mr. W1L1.1AMS. You don't recall ?
General Zwicker. I do not.
Mr. Williams. Do you deny that you did it ?
General Zwicker. Since there was no occasion for me to have made
any such utterance, I do not think it is even remotely possible that I
made any such remark. I cannot categorically deny that I said any-
thing that I don't recall any part of .
Mr. Williams. I have no further questions.
The Chairman. Mr. de Furia, do you have any further questions?
Mr. de Furia. Yes, sir.
General, did you promote Peress?
General Zwicker. I definitely did not.
Mr. DE Furia. Did you discharge him with an honorable discharge ?
General Zwicker. I did, sir.
Mr. DE Furia. Was that on your own initiative or under orders, sir?
General Zwicker. It was under orders.
Mr. DE Furia. What kind of work was Peress doing while you were
commandant at Camp Kilmer?
General Zwicker. He was a dentist and his work was confined
strictly to dentistry.
Mr.DE Furia. Was he in what you would call a sensitive position
so far as intelligence or information or classified material was con-
cerned ?
General Zwicker. He was not.
Mr. DE Furia. Senator Irving suggests that perhaps working with
teeth and nerves, that made it a sensitive position.
When you learned about the Peress separation order, did you ex-
press to anyone your feelings about the merits or demerits about that
separation order?
General Zwicker. I certainly did.
Mr. de Furia. When you learned that Peress was going from cap-
tain to be a major, did you express your personal feelings about that?
General Zwicker. I certainly did.
Mr. DE Furia. And when you learned that Peress was about to be
discharged with an honorable discharge, did you express your per-
sonal feelings about that?
General Zwicker. Most emphatically.
Mr. de Furia. How many separation orders for officers come
through Camp Kilmer, or came through from July 1953 to March of
1954? How many a day or a week?
General Zwicker. Our separation capacity at Camp Kilmer is
geared to 16,500 a month, sir.
Mr. de Furia. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question in light of
the redirect?
The Chairman. Certainly.
Mr. Williams. Mr. de Furia, General, just asked you whether you
ever objected to Peress being honorably discharged, and you said
Mr. de Furia. I didn't say that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Williams. Well, I ask the record be read, then.
The Chairman. I have been informed the other reporter has that
testimony.
506 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. Separated — Do you want me to use that word ? Is
that the word you used?
Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Williams, I believe I asked whether he expressed
his opinions about the subject, sir.
Mr. Williams. What is your answer, General ?
General Zwicker. I certainly did.
Mr. Williams. Did not Mr. de Furia then ask you whether you
opposed it?
General Zwicker. I don't believe so, sir.
Mr. Williams. He did not?
General Zwicker. I don't believe so.
Mr. Williams. Do you remember that the chairman of the subcom-
mittee who interrogated you on February 18 asked you this question:
Did you at any time ever object to this man being honorably discharged?
And you refused to answer that question ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. Well, now
Mr. DE Furia. That is why I didn't ask the question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Williams. Now, do you see a difference, General, between your
position then and your position now ?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
Mr. Williams. Will you state for the record wherein the difference
lies in the question that was asked you on February 18, and the ques-
tion that was asked you by Mr. de Furia ?
General Zwicker. If you would repeat the questions independently,
sir, I would be very glad to do that.
I would like to have them from the record.
Mr. Williams. Will you take thatfrom the record, Mr. Reporter?
The Chairman. We have sent for the reporter. The other reporter
took it. He has left. We will get him back. As soon as he returns,
we can have the questions read back, and the answers as well.
Mr. DE Furia. I repeated my question three times, and I think I
remember what I said, sir, and that was :
Did he express his personal feelings abont the claim of the refuge of the fifth
amendment and about the separation order and about the honorable discharge?
I did not ask him about whether he objected to those things because
of the Presidential orders.
Mr. Williams. What was the purpose of the inquiry if we weren't
going to get that information ?
Was it to leave an inference?
Mr. DE Furia. I don't think I have to answer that, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. When you expressed your opinion, General, were
you for it or against it ?
That is the next question : Were you for these things or against them ;
to clear the record up on it?
(At tliis point General Zwicker conferred with Colonel Johnson.)
Mr. Williams. Don't you have the record, Mr. Reporter, where Mr.
de Furia asked the witness — -—
General Zwicker. Mr. Williams, I have been informed by my coun-
sel that he indicates that I may answer your question in the manner
which I hope will be satisfactory to you.
I am informed by my counsel I may answer your question in this
manner : That my personal opinion was that I was very much opposed
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 507
to any change in grade of Peress, regardless of how it was accomp-
lished, that I was very much opposed to his receiving an honorable
discharge.
And what was the third factor ?
Mr. DE FuRiA. About his claim of refuge in the fifth amendment.
General Zwicker. Yes, sir, and was very much opposed to any officer
in the United States Army invoking the fifth amendment.
Mr. Williams. Did you express this opinion to anyone, sir ?
General Zwicker. I did.
Mr. WiLiJAMs. Did you express this opinion to persons in the
service ?
(At this point General Zwicker conferred with Colonel Johnson.)
Did you express it to
The Chairman. Just a moment. He hasn't answered yet. Let's get
the answer before you ask him another question.
General Zwicker. My counsel says I am now at the end of the rope.
Mr. Williams. Why couldn't you give those answers, General, to
the questions that were propounded to you on February 18 ?
General Zwicker. For the same reason I am not able, apparently, to
give a satisfactory answer to those questions today.
Mr. Williams. The answers you have just given, sir, that you ex-
pressed your opinion personally to these actions — why couldn't you
have given those answers on February 18 ?
General Zwicker. I don't know, Mr. Williams. My opinion is had
they been presented in that way I may have been able to do it.
However, I would like to make this statement :
That I am much, much more familiar with proceedings and hear-
ings and what I could say and what I couldn't say now than I was
on February 18.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. And may I ask this question :
Did you have counsel with you at that time ?
General Zwicker. No, sir ; I did not.
The Chairman. Had you consulted counsel before you went into
that hearing ?
General Zwicker. No, sir; except, again, in order that it not be
brought up, I did talk to Mr. Adams, of course, and Mr. Haskins, but
having no bearing, sir, on m>- testimony on the day of the 18th.
The Chairman. In fairness to you, probably we ought to bring to
the attention now of the committee this testimony appearing on page
Mr. CoHN. Now, General, would you like to be able to tell us exactly what
happened in that case, and what steps you took and others took, down at Kilmer
to take action against Peress a long time before action was finally forced by the
committee?
General Zwicker. That is a toughie.
Do you find it ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir ; I do.
The Chairman. To continue :
Mr. CoHN. All I am asking you now is if you could, if you were at liberty to do
so, would you like to be in a position to tell us that story?
General Zwicker. Well, may I say that if I were in a position to do so, I would
be perfectly glad to give the committee any information that they desired.
Mr. CoiiN. You certainly feel that that information would not reflect unfavor-
ably on you ; is that correct?
52461—54 33
508 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
General Zwicker. Definitely not.
Mr. CoHN. And would not reflect unfavorably on a number of other people at
Kilmer and the First Army?
General Zwicker. Definitely not.
The Chairman. It would reflect unfavorably on some of them, of course.
General Zwicker. That I can't answer, sir. I don't know.
Now, I undei'stand you are finished with the examination.
Tliere were two questions that were reserved for this morning. Does
counsel, in view of the examination this afternoon, still want those
questions pressed?
Mr. Williams. I have forgotten what they were now.
The Chairman. Well, we reserved them. If you still want them
pressed
Mr. Williams. I have no desire to press them now, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. All right.
Thank you. You may step aside, General, unless members of the
committee have some questions to ask.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one question.
The Chairman. Senator Ervin.
Senator Ervin. As I recall, those questions that the chairman re-
ferred to. General, were questions put to you this morning by Mr.
Williams as to what you knew about the Peress case in August 1953,
and you declined to answer those questions, you said, on the basis of
the orders to which you were subject ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Do I draw the inference correctly that you declined
to answer those questions this morning because your knowledge of the
Peress case at that time was based on Army records of a security
nature ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Senator Carlson. Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. Senator Carlson.
Senator Carlson. General Zwicker, I think it will help me a little
bit here if I get some of these items fixed a little better in my mind.
As I understand it now, you appeared at this hearing on February
18, at this courthouse in New York, both in the forenoon and after-
noon ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Senator Carlson. And do I understand that this letter that has been
made a part of the record this morning from Secretary Stevens, given
to you, or given to Senator McCarthy, was presented to the Senator
the afternoon of the day of February 18?
General Zwicker. I believe it was between the morning recess and
the time that the hearing in the afternoon was resumed.
Senator Carlson. Well, then
General Zwicker. About noon I would say ; yes, sir.
Senator Carlson. In other words, this letter was delivered by Mi .
Adams about noon of that day; is that correct?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Senator Carlson. You were then called, as I remember it, to the
stand in the afternoon, about 4 : 30, of that same day ?
General Zwicker. Of the same day; yes, sir.
Senator Carlson. That is all, IMr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Are there any other questions ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 509
If not, the general will be excused.
Colonel Johnson. Sir, may I understand that?
Is the general being permanently excused ?
He has orders to comply with and. unless the committee so
desires, he does not plan on staying here in Washington.
The Chairman. Under the circumstances, I think, unless some
members of the committee, or counsel for Senator McCarthy, or the
committee counsel, have more questions, you are excused permanently.
If anything does come up, we might catch j^ou en route.
Of long experience, I never say a matter is over until it is over.
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Colonel Johnson. At least, sir, I do not want him to be held
in contempt.
The Chairman. Well, he will not be held in contempt if we have
to call him, but as far as this hearing is concerned, that we know of
at this moment, he is excused.
We will take a 15-minute recess at this point.
(Whereupon, at 3:30 p. m., a 20-minute recess was taken.)
The Chairman. The committee will resume session.
Mr. de Furia, will you call the next witness.
Mr. DE Furia. I should like to inquire wliether Mr. George Anastos
is in the room, sir ?
The Chairman. Is Mr. Anastos here?
If he is, please come forward.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator McCarthy.
Senator McCarthy. The implication there is that Mr. Anastos has
been subpenaed. I asked Mr. Frank Carr if he was asked where Mr.
Anastos was. I told Carr to bring him down anyway and I think
Mr. de Furia should make it very clear that he has never asked
the chief of our staff where Mr. Anastos was; never made any at-
tempt to find out where he was; so this request, 'Ts Mr. Anastos in
the room?" I believe is completely unfair. It leaves the impression
that Anastos had been subpenaed.
I have, however, on my own, asked Mr. Anastos to come down.
Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Chairman, we had a subpena issued by you in
the regular process and that was turned over to the Sergeant-at-Arms
of the Senate, and then to the United States marshal, and they looked
for Mr. Anastos, I believe, sir, and. they cannot find him. I was in
hopes he was here today. I only have a few questions to ask him
and it would clear our record.
That is the purpose of inquiring. I don't know Mr. Anastos and
he might well have been.
Mr. Williams. Did you talk to Mr. Frank Carr about this, Mr.
de Furia ?
Mr. DE Furia. Unfortunately, I have been somewhat occupied and
matters of subpena have not been under my supervision.
Mr. Williams. Lest unfair inference be drawn, I am sure you don't
want that to happen, let me say this, that Mr. Carr, after hearing
that you wanted Mr. Anastos, undertook to call him all day yesterday.
Mr. Anastos is in Pittsburgh on a committee assignment. Mr. Anastos
was away for the weekend. Mr. Carr stayed up late through the
night trying to reach him and did reach him this morning and asked
510 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
him to come down here today for you. ,. I don't think it is fair to call
out in the room and ask whether he is here when you have not yourself
asked him to be here and subpenaed him and we have made every effort
to bring him here for you.
Mr. DE FuKiA. I told you at least twice I was looking for Mr. Anas-
tos and if you had just told me what you have just stated, it would
have simplified the matter.
Mr. Williams. You didn't ask me.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Very well.
I would like to ask Mr. Nelson, Mr. Clifford Nelson, to come
forward.
The Chairman. Mr. Nelson will be sworn.
TESTIMONY OF CLIFFORD J. NELSON
The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the testhnony you
will give in the matter now pending before this committee will be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God? ^ i>y
Mr. Nelson. I do.
The Chairman. Proceed with the examination.
Mr. DE FuRiA. With the chairman's permission, Mr. Nelson, will
you please give us your full name, address, and official position ?
Mr. Nelson. Full name is Clifford J. Nelson. My address is 2203
Observatory Place NW., in Washington. My official position, I am
an attorney in the Internal Security Division of the Department of
Justice, now assigned to duty as department security officer.
Mr. DE FuRiA. The department security officer of the Department
of Justice?
Mr. Nelson. That's right, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. How long have you been with the Department of
Justice ?
Mr. Nelson. I believe the date is January 22, 1951.
Mr. DE FuRiA. January 22, 1951 ?
Mr. Nelson. Since that time ; yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Were you familiar with the classification procedure
and requirements of the Department of Justice from January 1951
to date?
Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. January 1951, what did the word "confidential"
mean upon report or investigation issued by the Department of Jus-
tice ? By the FBI, I am sorry, sir.
Mr. Nelson. Well, it meant it was the classification of a document
concerning the information contained in it, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Was the w^ord "confidential" an officially recognized
method at that time of designating FBI reports ?
Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Was there a top rating, so far as disclosure or
secrecy was concerned, in January 1951?
Mr. Nelson. To my knowledge, the only classification the FBI used
>t that time was the classification '"confidential."
Mr. DE FuRiA. Was there any regulation in January 1951 that the
word "confidential" had to be printed, typed, stamped, or written or
designated in any particular fashion ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 511
Mr. Nelson. Not to my knowledge, sir, if I understand your ques-
tion correctly. You mean as to the physical way the classification is
}>ut on the document ?
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes, sir.
Mr. Nelson. I would say, no, sir.
Mr. DE Ftjria. How was it customary to affix the word "confidential"
on papers and documents which were not to be disclosed? I mean,
what was the manner in which it was usually done in January of 1951?
Mr. Nelson. I don't think there was any particular manner — writ-
ten on in hand, typed on, stamped, just whatever the circumstances
were, whatever the person classifying the document or placing it on
there would happen to use.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Now, in May or June of 1953, was there any change
in the signification of the word "confidential" as applied to FBI re-
ports ?
Mr. Nelson. May or June of 1953 ?
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes.
The Chairman. Do you want to expand that so we will have it cov-
ered as to not only reports, but documents, letters ?
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And whatever might be issued by the FBI, or in
whatever form it might be.
Mr. Nelson. Well, there was a change.
The Chairman. Do you accept that as part of the question?
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes.
The Chairman. So the witness will know and cover the field while
he is at it.
Mr. Nelson. Well, as of May or June, he said, of 1953, there was
then in effect Executive Order 10290 in which I understand the FBI
operated, and that 10290 had four different degrees of classification.
Mr. DE FuRiA. We have that in the record, Mr. Nelson.
Mr. Nelson. Yes.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Now, in January 1951, which order was in effect so
far as marking FBI records, papers, documents, reports, confidential ?
Mr. Nelson. To my knowledge, I believe there had been several de-
partmental orders. I have one with me here. I recall there was one
in 1946. I can't quote it. I will be glad to get it for the committee
if it is desired.
There was another one in April 1948, put out by the then Attorney
General to the effect that all FBI files, records, reports, et cetera are
confidential.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Will you give us the date of that order, the one that
you are referring to now, of April 1948, which apparently followed
President Truman's order of March 1948 ?
Mr. Nelson. That order is dated April 23, 1948, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Signed by whom?
Mr. Nelson. Tom C. Clark, Attorney General.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Addressed to whom ?
Mr. Nelson. To the heads of all Government departments, agencies,
and commissions.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Williams, would you like to see that? I would
like to have it read into the record at tliis point.
Mr. Williams. I certainly would like to see it ; yes.
512 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The Chairman. Will the witness give us an extra copy, if he has
one?
Mr. Nelson. I have a copy here, and these were hurriedly made. I
have several copies of them.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Will you please read that order, so that it will be
in the record, Mr. Nelson ?
Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir ; I shall be glad to. This is on the stationery
of the Office of the Attorney General, Washington, D. C, and dated
April 23, 1948. It is directed to the heads of all Government de-
partments, agencies, and commissions.
The text of the order reads as follows :
As you are aware, the Federal Bureau of Investigatiou from time to time
makes available to Government departments, agencies, and commissions infor-
mation gathered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation which is of interest to
such departments, agencies, or commissions. These reports and communica-
tions are confidential. All such reports and communications are the property of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and are subject at all times to its control
and to all privileges which the Attorney General has as to the use of or disclosure
of documents of the Department of Justice. Any department, agency, or com-
mission receiving such reports or communications is merely a custodian thereof
for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the documents or communications
are subject to recall at any time.
Neither the reports and communications nor their contents may be disclosed
to any outside person or source without specific prior approval of the Attorney
General or of the Assistant to the Attorney General or an Assistant Attorney
General acting for the Attorney General.
Should any attempt be made, whether by request or subpena or motion for
smbpena or court order, or otherwise, to obtain access to or disclosure of any
such report or communication, either separately or as a part of the files and
records of a Government department, agency, or commission, the reports and
communications involved should be immediately returned to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation in order that a decision can be reached by me or by my desig-
nated representative in each individual instance as to the action which should
be taken.
Tom C. Clark,
Attorney General.
Mr. DE FuRiA. We have concluded our examination, Mr, Chairman.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Mr, Nelson, this order which you have produced,
here, dated April 23, 1948, is an order signed by the Attorney General,
Tom Clark, that is an administrative classification order ; is that not
right? Can you call that an administrative classification order or a
classification order for administrative purposes ?
Mr. Nelson. Well, we can get into — I am not quite sure I know
what you mean.
Mr. Williams. Let me see if I can clear it up. This order, in so
far as security information is concerned, was superseded on Septem-
ber 24, 1951, by Executive Order 10290 ; is that not so ?
Mr. Nelson. I would say so ; yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. Now, Executive Order 10290 sets out four categor-
ies of classified security information, does it not?
Mr. Nelson. That is right, sir.
Mr. Williams. "Top secret," "Secret," "Confidential," and
"Restricted" ; is that right ?
Mr. Nelson. That is correct.
Mr Williams. And it provides, does it not, Mr. Nelson, that in
addition to bearing the designations "Top secret," "Secret," "Confi-
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 513
dential," or "Restricted," there shall also be placed on the back of
any of the documents in question the words "Security information" ;
is that not right ?
Mr. Nelson. That is right.
Mr. Williams. So that, as of September 1951, before the document
was classified "Security information," it had to bear one of these four
terms, "Top secret security information," "Secret security informa-
tion," "Secret security information," "Confidential security informa-
tion," or "Restricted security information"; is that not right?
Mr. Nelson. I do not think so, Mr. Williams. I think you said
"before September."
Mr. Williams. No ; after September 1951.
Mr. Nelson. That is true.
Mr. Williams. That was September 1951. If I said 1953 before,
I am sorry ; I did not intend to say that.
Mr. Nelson. That is right.
Mr. Williams. They had to bear that specific designation, by vir-
tue of the Presidential Order No. 10290?
Mr. Nelson. That is correct.
Mr. Williams. And that order was made applicable to every
agency in the executive branch, was it not?
Mr. Nelson. I believe so ; yes ; yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. And that order stayed in effect until December 15,
1953, did it not?
Mr. Nelson. That is right.
Mr. Williams. And then it was superseded by a new Presidential
order. No. 10501 ; is that correct ?
Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. And is it not a fact that 10501 changed the classi-
fication of security information to "Top secret," "Secret," and "Confi-
dential" ?
Mr. Nelson. That is correct.
Mr. Williams. And so each of the agencies had to go through their
files and they had to either declassify restricted information, or put
it in one of their other classifications ; is that right ?
Mr. Nelson. I do not believe that is absolutely right; no, sir.
It would be a physical impossibility.
Mr. Williams. At any rate, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Nelson,
that as of December 15, 1953, there were only three categories of classi-
fied, security information ; is that right ?
Mr. Nelson. Insofar as Executive Order 10450 is concerned ; yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. Now, Executive Order 10450, which came into effect
on December 15 of 1953, specifically provides that any document which
contains, which is either top secret, secret, or confidential, shall bear
this inscription whenever practicable, and I am going to quote :
This material contains information affecting the national defense of the United
States within the meaning of espionage laws, title XVIII, United States Code,
sections 793 and 794, the transmission or revelation of which in any manner to
an unauthorized person is prohibited by law.
Is that not right ?
Mr. Nelson. May I ask where you are reading, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams, t am reading from the order itself, section I. I
think it is section I.
Mr. Nelson. I of section 4 ?
514 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Mr. Nelson. That is right.
Mr. Williams. And it provides that, does it not ?
Mr. Nelson. That is right.
Excuse me. It provides that that should be done in certain situa-
tions.
Mr. Williams. Whenever practicable?
Mr. Nelson. Well, the heading of section I^
Mr. Williams. Well, let us read that.
Mr. Nelson. All right.
Mr. Williams. It states :
When classified material afifecting the national defense is furnished authorized
persons in or out of the Federal service, other than those in the executive branch,
the following notation in addition to the assigned classification marking shall,
whenever practicable, be placed on the material or its container or on a written
notification of its assigned classification.
Is that right ?
Mr. Nelson. That is right. ;i
Mr. Williams. Now, this order is still in effect, is it not, Mr, Nelson ?
Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. ■
Mr. Williams. Now, between September of 1951 and December
1953, December 15 of 1953, which are the dates with which we are
concerned here. Order No. 10291 was in effect; is that not righl ?
Mr. Nelson. 10290.
Mr. Williams. I am sorry ; that is right. It was an order by Pres-
ident Truman, was it not, sir ?
Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. And that order, insofar as it affected securit^^ in-
formation, sj)ecifically provides that the words "Security information"
should be imprinted on the document next to its classification of "top .
secret, secret, confidential or restricted."
Mr, Nelson. That is right.
Mr. Williams. That order No. 10290 superseded the various orders
that were outstanding before it in the various departments, did it not,
insofar as security information was concerned ?
Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. I have no further questions.
Mr. DE FuRiA. We have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. You may be excused, Mr. Nelson.
Call the next witness.
Mr. DE FuEiA, Mr. James Juliana, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Juliana, please come forward.
Will you raise your right hand and be sworn ?
. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give in the matter
now pending before the committee will be the truth, the whole truthj
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Juliana. I do, sir. .
TESTIMONY OF JAMES N. JULIANA
The Chairman. Proceed with the examination, Mr. de Furia.
Mr. DE Furia, Mr. Juliana, will you i)lease give us your name, ad-
dress, and present position ?
Mr. Juliana. James N. Juliana.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 515
I reside in Silver Spring, Md.
I am an investigator for the Senate Permanent Subcommittee of
Investigation.
Mr. DE FuRiA. How long have you been an investigator with that
subcommittee?
Mr. Juliana. Since September of last year, 1953.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you see General Zwicker at Camp Kilmer in the
•.performance of your duties for the subcommittee ?
Mr. Juliana. Yes, sir. ■?
Mr. deFuria. When, Mr. Juliana?
Mr. Juliana. I believe it was February 13, 1954.
Mr. DE FuRiA. That would be about 5 days before the General Zwick-
er hearing in New York, is that correct, sir ?
Mr. Juliana. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did he, at that time, give you a copy of the Peress
separation order ?
Mr. Juliana. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Juliana, you have heard some small talk at these
hearings about a 2i/4-page paper that Senator McCarthy presented
during tlie course of the Army-McCarthy hearing ; is that correct, sir ?
Mr. Juliana. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE Fl^ria. Did you ever see that paper ?
Mr. Juliana. I believe I saw the paper just prior to Senator Mc-
Carthy's introducing it during the Mundt committee hearings. ■
Mr. Williams. Not introduced, please.
Mr. Juliana. Well, at the time he first sppke about it.
Mr. DE FuRiA. We understand, sir.
Now, is that the first time you ever saw it, Mr. Juliana ?
Mr. Juliana. Yes, sir,
Mr. DE Furia. That paper, did you ever see that paper after Sen-
ator McCarthy had it at the Army-McCarthy hearing ?
Mr. Juliana. I never saw the paper in this room during those
hearings. It may have been handed back and forth once or twice
subsequent to the first time they spoke about it.
Mr. DE Furia. Other than the making of a copy of Senator
McCarthy's 214-page paper for the Department of Justice, do you
know whether any other copies were made?
Mr. Juliana. I do not.
Mr. DE Furia. Did you make any ? .
Mr. Juliana. I did not.
Mr. DE Furia. Are you sure, sir ?
Mr. Juliana. I am positive, sir.
Mr. DK Furia. Do you know whether anybody else made any other
copies, aiid I am asking you of your own knowledge, Mr. Juliana.
Mr. Juliana. I would not know.
Mr. DE Furia. Do you know whether any person distributed copies
to the press?
Mr. Juliana. I do not know.
Mr. DE Furia. Did you see distributing what purported to be copies
to the press ?
Mr. Juliana. I did not.
Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Juliana, going back to the General Zwicker in-
cident once again, you got a copy of the Peress separation order on
February 13, did you not?
516 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Juliana. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. What did you do with that, sir ?
Mr. Juliana. If my recollection is clear, I personally held on to
that. However, I did show it, I believe, to Mr. Cohn and to Mr. Carr.
I believe the day that General Zwicker testified I handed it, or I
personally saw that someone at the head table was given that letter,
either Senator McCarthy or Mr. Cohn.
Mr. DE FuRiA. When did yon show it to Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr?
How long before the General Zwicker hearing ?
Mr. Juliana. Oh, it was only a day or two after I received it from
the general.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Were you at the hearing?
Mr. Juliana. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you have the paper with you at that time, your
copy of the Peress separation order ?
Mr. Juliana. I believe I did ; yes, sir.
Mr. DE Furia. Didn't you produce it and hand it to Senator Mc-
Carthy?
Mr. Juliana. I handed it to either Senator McCarthy or Mr. Cohn,.
if my recollection is clear.
Mr. DE Furia. And what did either Senator McCarthy or Mr. Cohn
do as you handed the Peress separation paper to them, do you remem-
ber?
Mr. Juliana. No, I don't. I guess they read it. I don't place
any significance on what happened after I gave it to them.
Mr. DE Furia. You can't remember ; is that right ?
Mr. Juliana. That is right.
Mr. DE Furia. You did hand it to either one or the other ? That is
the best of your recollection ?
Mr. Juliana. That is right.
Mr. DE Furia. That is all of our questions.
Mr. Williams, you may examine.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Juliana, before coming with the subcommittee,
you were a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
were you not?
Mr. Juliana. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams. For how long did you serve in that capacity ?
Mr. JuT^iANA. Approximately 614 years.
Mr. Williams. Where did you serve as a special agent for the Fed-
eral Bureau of Investigation ?
Mr. Juliana. For a short while in Springfield, 111., and the major
part of the time in New York City.
Mr. Williams. Wlien did you resign from the Bureau ?
Mr. Juliana. In August of 1953.
Mr. Williams. Is that just prior to your coming with the com-
mittee ?
Mr. Juliana. It was some few weeks before I came with the com-
mittee.
Mr. Williams. Now, incident with your duties as an investigator
for the subcommittee, you interviewed, you stated to Mr. de Furia,
General Zwicker, is that right-?
Mr. Juliana. Yes, sir.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 517
: Mr. Williams. Did General Zwicker recount to you the circum-
stances surrounding the discharge of Irving Peress on February 2?
Mr. Juliana. He did.
Mr. Williams. Did he tell you that he had received orders from
Washington on this ?
Mr. Juliana. He did.
Mr. Williams. Did he indicate to you that he had talked to any-
one in Washington on this ?
Mr. Juliana. He indicated to me that he had been in frequent con-
tact with Washington on the former Major Peress matter.
Mr. Williams. Did he indicate to you whether or not he had had
contact with Washington prior to his action of February 2 ?
Mr. Juliana. He did so indicate.
Mr. Williams. Did he indicate to you that he was opposed to this
action ?
Mr. Juliana. He did.
Mr. Williams. Did he tell you these things freely ?
Mr. Juliana. He did
Mr. Williams. Did you relate these things to the chairman of the
committee ?
Mr. Juliana. I did.
Mr. Williams. Did you relate these things to the chairman of the
committee prior to General Zwicker's appearance at Foley Square on
the date in question ?
Mr. JuTvIana. I did.
Mr. Williams. I have no further questions.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Juliana, can you say positively that General
Zwicker said "Washington" instead of "Governors Island" or "First
Army"?
Mr. Juliana. He left the definite impression in my mind that he
had been in contact with the Pentagon, and I assumed that to be Wash-
ington.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Can you say, under oath, that General Zwicker men-
tioned Washington or the Pentagon, or might he have said Governorg
Island or the First Army ?
_ Mr. Juliana. I will say under oath that, to the best of my recollec-
tion, it was the Pentagon.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Can you remember any particular words used, by
General Zwicker referring to the Pentagon ?
Mr. Juliana. The Pentagon. He tised the words "The Pentagon."
- Mr. DE Furia. Is that all you can remember about it?
!^- Mr. Juliana. No. I can remember further that he said that — and
I almost quote this — "I had been in frequent contact with the Pen-
tagon."
That is almost a quote. Now, I can't say it is a definite quote.
Mr. DE Furia. Did he mention that it went through the First Army
to the Pentagon or direct ?
In other words, did he say he contacted the Pentagon or was the
Pentagon contacted through the First Army ?
' Mr. Juliana. He did not say that the Pentagon was contacted
through the First Army. However, in discussing this matter — I talked
with him about an hour — I was under the definite impression that his
immediate superior was the First Army.
518 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. DE FuRiA. Where are your notes about this conversation, Mr.
Juliana?
Mr. JuuANA. My notes have been destroyed, but I dictated a memo
for the file.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Wben did you dictate the memo ?
Mr. Juliana. Excuse me. I didn't dictate it. I'll take that back.
I typed it myself the next day, which was a Sunday. I remember that,
sir, clearly.
Mr. DE FuRiA. That is all we have, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. You are excused, Mr. Juliana.
Mr. Juliana. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I can report to you, sir, that George
Anastos is in the room, available for Mr. de Furia to call.
The Chairman. Mr. Anastos. Raise your right hand and be sworn.
Do you solemnly swear the testimony given in the matter now pend-
ing before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth.
Mr. Anastos. I do.
The Chairman. So help you God ?
Mr. Anastos. So help me God.
The Chairman. You may examine.
TESTIMONY OF C. GEORGE ANASTOS
Mr. DE Furia. Will you give us your name, address, and official
position, sir ?
Mr. Anastos. C. George Anastos — C as in Cosmos — C-o-s-m-o-s.
I am assistant counsel with the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations.
Mr. DE Furia. And you have been how long, sir ?
Mr. Anastos. Since a year ago this month.
Mr. DE Furia. Did you have a telephone conversation with General
Zwicker, 1 believe in the early part of January 1954, about Peress ?
Mr. Anastos. I telephoned General Zwicker on January 22 of
this year.
Mr. DE Furia. January 22?
Mr. Anastos. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE Furia. Yes.
Mr. Anastos. Concerning the Peress case.
Mr. DE Furia. What was the conversation, please ?
Mr. Anastos. Well, I told him — I told General Zwicker — that we
had information that there was a card-carrying Communist, who was
a major, probably in the Medical Corps, at Camp Kilmer.
General Zwicker indicated that he knew who we had — whom we
had in mind.
Mr. DE Furia. Did he mention the name?
Mr. Anastos. At first he did not mention the name.
Mr. DE Furia. Yes.
Mr. Anastos. As I recall, he asked me if I knew his name, and I
replied that I didn't have the name before me, that maybe somebody
else in the committee may have known, had the name, but that I did
not; and he raised some objection to talking on the telephone, and I
suggested to him that if he had any question as to who I was he could
telephone back at the office where I was.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 519
As I remember, about an hour later he returned the call. He called
me back and he said he had the files before him or he had looked at
the files, and he proceeded to give me the name of Peress, his serial
number, the dates that he was called into the service. He told me
that they had information, that the Army had information, that
Major Peress was, had been — was or had been — a member of the
Communist Party ; that his wife, Elaine, was a member of the party,
that she held Communist Party meetings at their home.
He also stated that Major Peress had been a Communist Party
organizer and probably gave me a few more details along those lines.
Then he added that in August of 1953 Peress had refused to answer
a loyalty questionnaire because he invoked his constitutional privilege
not to answer those questions.
General Zwicker also mentioned Peress, who was then captain,
was promoted to the position of major in November of 1953, and
concluded by saying that he had received word from the Department
of the Army that Peress was to be separated from the service within
90 days with an honorable discharge.
As I recall, General Zwicker also mentioned to me that — there was
some question as to forcing Major Peress out of the service — that they
would try to persuade him to separate himself from the service. I
don't remember exactly what he said, but there was some discussion
&s to that.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Was that in order to avoid a court-martial ?
Mr. Anastos. I don't know. I didn't go into it.
Mr. DE FuRiA. And is this all in the same telephone conversation ?
Mr. Anastos. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. You may continue.
Mr. Anastos. The next day, next morning. General Zwicker tele-
phoned me again and told me that he had just received word from the
Department of the Army that Major Peress was to be separated within
90 days with an honorable discharge.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Was that a voluntary call on the part of General
Zwicker ?
Mr. Anastos. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you find him cooperative?
Mr. Anastos. For my purposes ; yes, sir. He was.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Was Mr. Cohn familiar with the fact about which
you have just testified when he, Mr. Cohn, examined General Zwicker
at the hearing on February 18, 1954 ? --
Mr. Anastos. Yes, sir ; he was.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Was Senator McCarthy familiar with those facts?
Mr. Anastos. Well, sir, I didn't discuss this matter with Senator
McCarthy because I dealt primarily with Eoy Cohn and with Frank
Carr.
I do recall in this case I pretty much discussed it witli Roy — because
he had been the one who originally — he was the chief counsel.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you make a report of your conversation with
General Zwicker and the information you received from him ?
Mr. Anastos. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE Furia. Was that in the file ?
Mr. Anastos. I submitted it to, memorandum, two memoranda, to
T'rank Carr.
52461—54 — —34
520 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. DE FuRiA. In order to clear the skirts of everyone, let me ask
the same question I have asked others.
Did you have anything to do with making copies of the 214-page
paper ?
Mr. Anastos. Absolutely not, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA, Did you see anybody make copies?
Mr. Anastos. No, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you see anybody distribute them ?
Mr. Anastos. No, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. You had nothing whatever to do with it ?
Mr. Anastos. I had nothing to do with it in any shape or form.
Mr. DE FuRiA. That concludes our examination, sir.
The Chairman. Mr. Williams.
Mr. WiLT.iAMS. I have no questions of this witness, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Does any committee member have any questions?
You may be excused.
Apparently no one wants to ask you any questions.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, you recall this morning I raised a
question of a legal point on this classification question.
I have prepared memoranda for members of the committee on this
point, which I should like to submit at this time.
Mr. Chadwick. May I request that Mr. Williams include us in the
people to get copies ?
Mr. Williams. I have copies for you.
Mr. Chadwick. Have you yet been able to give us a copy of the mem-
orandum
Mr, Williams. I haven't been able to leave this room to go back to
my office to get them, but I told you and Mr. de Furia that I would get
one for you before the sun goes down.
Mr. Chadwick. Thank you, sir.
The reason I persisted in it is that I will have to make a request of
the chairman in a few minutes on that subject.
The Chairman. You may submit them to the committee.
(The document referred to was distributed to the members of the
committee).
The Chairman. There was a matter with respect to the situation in
the Senate in connection with the subcommittee of the Committee on
Rules which is more particularly designated as the Subcommittee on
Privileges and Elections as to what constituted membership in that
committee; what would be the power of the chairman to fill vacancies
in the event he had resignations ; matters connected with the legal and
parliamentary situation affecting that subcommittee.
As I recall, the matter was to be presented to Mr. Charles Watkins,
the Parliamentarian.
I was advised by, I think, a Member of the Senate that he had con-
tacted him and that he was not well and he doubted that he was in phy-
sical condition to come here and testify.
As I remember during the discussion before the committee, there was
&ort of an understanding that we could submit interrogatories to him,
I think probably joint interrogatories on behalf of the committee and
Senator McCarthy, and permit him to give his opinion in that way
and have them made a part of the record in this case.
Is that still the situation, Mr. Williams ?
Mr. Williams. May I confer with Senator McCarthy first ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 521
(Mr. Williams conferred with Senator McCarthy.)
Mr. Williams. We are perfectly agreeable to anything you want
to do along that line.
The Chairman. If you will prepare some of the interrogatories
you think ought to be submitted to him, and serve them upon the com-
mittee through its counsel, then we can probably agree upon the inter-
rogatories that ought to be submitted.
Mr. Williams. My suggestion is that
The Chairman. I say now to Mr. Williams and Senator McCarthy,
Do you have any witnesses or other evidence of any kind or descrip-
tion you think the committee could secure that should be presented to
this committee and to tlie Senate ?
Mr. Williams. I would like to call tlie attention^ — we have no wit-
nesses, to answer your direct question.
The Chairman. We have taken the position, as I have stated fre-
quently at these hearings, that tlie committee wanted to get all the
evidence that could pass the standards that we had set up, no matter
whether it helped or hurt Senator McCarthy. We wanted to get
the full statement of all the facts available, all the evidence available,
and as much law on it as we could get covering all phases of the inves-
tigation, and of the charges that have been filed which we are now
considering. So that is why I renewed this request.
Mr. Williams. I would like that there be inserted into the record,
Mr. Chairman, some colloquy that appears in the Congressional Rec-
of July 31, 1954, wherein the present chairman of the Subcommittee
on Privileges and Elections reports certain activities of the committee
which had preceded his — I am not going to read this because it would
take too long — but wherein he reports that that committee had a mail
drive or mail cover placed on Senator IMcCarthy here and his own
comments on that, and also his comments upon the report itself which
is in evidence here.
I think that is germane to this inquiry. It is part of the record.
It is page 1281, Saturday, July 31, 1954; the remarks of Senator
Jenner, the present chairman of the Committee on Rules and Adminis-
tration.
The Chairman. I thinlc I recall the remarks made by Senator Jen-
ner. By offering that, do you now raise any questions as to whether or
not the report was actually presented by the subcommittee to the full
Committee on Rules ?
You have been referring all the way through to the report, and I
assume from that that you were in the position that you thought a
report actually had been made, and if there is any question about that^
I think we probably could get some evidence on that point.
]Mr. Williams. I am not challenging; I am not in that area, if I
understand your question.
The Chairman. If it is raised
Mr. Williams. All I want to do is to introduce the remarks of
Senator Jenner.
The Chairman. For the purpose of showing that no report was
made? If that is the purpose, the committee ought to exhaustall
possibilities of getting information on that point. I think were is a
possibility of getting some information.
If that is not the fact, counsel might be willing to stipulate that
this document had actually been given to the chairman of the full
522 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
committee, prior to the reorganization of the Senate in 1953, when the
Republicans took over.
Mr. Williams. I cannot stipulate that the full committee ever
adopted the report, because I understand the fact to be that it did not.
The Chairman. I would not go so far as to say it had actually been
finally adopted, but the point is that they actually had that report
called to their attention — that is, the full committee, by the subcom-
mittee.
Mr. Williams. We do not take the position that the full committee
ever authorized the final report.
The Chairman. I do not know whether it has ever authorized it or
not, but would you go so far as to say that they gave them a copy of
it, that the report was transmitted to the chairman of the full com-
mittee with a letter of transmittal from the clerk of the committee, at
the instance of Senator Hennings, who was then the chairman of the
subcommittee ?
Mr. Williams. I do not know what the fact is. I would like to talk
with the Senator.
The Chairman. I think we can get information on that point. That
is the reason I am calling for information about that, because of the
fact that you have apparently challenged the statement. Of course,
it is not important that it was filed. Ordinarily it is not so considered,
and you need not bring in that evidence or go any further, if it was
understood that it was actually recorded.
Mr. Williams. Our position on this, Mr. Chairman, is this — and I
understood your information was that the report was handed to the
members of the full committee. We certainly do not want to burden
the record through calling witnesses to establish that. Our position, of
course, is that the report was never debated, either by members of the
Committee on Rules and Administration or b}^ the Senate.
The Chairman. Well, I think that is probably true. I do not con-
tend for that. But we do have a copy of the letter, a photostatic copy
of the letter that was sent, I think, to Senator Hayden, the then acting
chairman of the Rules Committee, and of which copies were trans-
mitted. Copies of the report were transmitted to the full committee.
We could bring that into the record: and it is a photostatic copy.
We will cair a witness, I think, from the Senate, if necessary, but
I was going along, by reason of the position you had taken, of think-
ing that probably we need not do that.
Mr. Williams. No.
The Chairman. We do not think we need do that.
Mr. Williams. We have gone as far as we can, in the statement that
the report was physically handed to you.
The Chairman. If there is any doubt about it, we can produce the
letter, and establish the fact that three copies were transmitted with
the report, which was received here in evidence for certain limited
purposes ; that they were actually transmitted to the full committee,
and that they were found in the files.
Mr. Chadwick, have you any other matters to call to the commit-
tee's attention before we recess?
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, as a matter of housekeeping, or
in the presentation of the case, I first of all would like to ask the chair-
man's permission to submit, at as early a time as possible, hereafter, a
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 523
brief or briefs on the questions to which Mr. Williams has addressed
himself, which have already been delivered — one of them— to us with-
in a few minutes, and the other of which is to come. Copies of those
briefs will be handed to Mr. Williams, at the same time that they are
handed to the chairman; and, unless you want to have another
session — Avhich I think you do not — I am asking permission now ta»
give those to you, to become a supplemental part of the record of the
case — the original briefs.
Mr. AViLLiAMS. I have no objection to that.
I have something I should like to call to the Chair's attention, as
representing our views on collateral matters, that I think I could
bring up now.
The Chairmax. The request of counsel will be granted.
I will state this. The committee is in a position, or takes the i)Osi-
tion, that they ought to get the fullest information possible, both on
the facts and on the law, and it will appreciate the filing of a brief , and
submission of authorities, which will aid it in preparing its report,
and which, of course, we believe can be debated by the United States
Senate when it comes to consider the report.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Since I understand that all the evidence is in
Mr. CiiADWicK. Mr. Williams, I am sorry. You interrupted me
unintentionally. There is a second point I desire to raise.
Mr. Williams. I am sorry.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Jex. who has cooperated with us throughout
this case, very effectively, at our request sought to obtain a certified
copy of a document which we felt was important. He succeeded in
getting a certified copy, but not of the material that we asked for;
and I am told by him, now, that it is not practical to get that within
the next few minutes or before adjourning time.
I should like, in order to save the committee's time, to have permis-
sion, again, to submit that to the committee. I would submit it, also, to
Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. What is the document?
Mr. Chadwick. It is a certification of orders — the certification
of an order of the Finance Department — the disbursing officer, I mean.
The Chairman. You mean, of the United States Senate ?
Mr. Chadwick. Of the United States Senate.
The Chairman. That is with reference to the payment of salaries
and directing the payment of the salaries prior to the Republican re-
organization of the Senate in January 1953?
Mr. Chadwick. That is correct. Mr. Williams says that is all right.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I wanted to be sure we were talking about the same
thing, as to the thing that was to be submitted. The Chair will rule
that the document when obtained will be printed at this place in the
record.
United States of America
United States General Accotjnting Office
Pursuant to the provisions of sections 306 and 311 (e) of the Budget and
Accounting Act, 1921, 42 Stat. 24, 25 ; 31 U. S. C. 46, 52 (e), and to 4 CFR 12.2 (a),
524
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
I hereby certify that the annexed document, is a true copy of the official docu-
ment now on file in the United States General Accounting Office in the following
case : Axlen J. Goodman, et al.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the
United States General Accounting Office to be affixed this 17th day of September
in the year 1954 at Washington.
By direction of the Comptroller General of the United States.
[seal]
E. C. BOHANNON,
United States General Accounting Office.
United States Senate payroll for the month of January 1953 for services rendered
the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of the Committee on Rules and
Administration under authority of S. Res. 383, agreed to June 12, 1952
Name
Designation
Tax
e.x-
emp-
tions
Basic
amiual
salary
Gross
annual
salary
Gross
earned
during
month 1
In-
come
tax
deduc-
tion
Retire-
ment
deduc-
tion
Net
amount
paid
Goodman, Allen J
Kramer, Samuel H...
Litwin, Genevieve. .
Assistant counsel
Assistant counsel
Stenos^rapher . .
1
3
I
1
3
1
4
2
4
4
$3, 840
3,540
2,700
5,340
5.010
2,640
3,120
4,680
2,340
6,120
7,320
$6. 672. 85
6, 194. 89
4, 856. 61
8, 990. 07
8, 5,52. 84
4, 761. 00
5, .525. 75
8, 005. 36
4, 283. 04
10,068.45
11,646.00
$556. 07
510.24
404. 71
424. 53
712.73
396. 75
460. 47
222. 37
95.17
755. 13
97. 05
$99. 07
(i8. 24
70.71
71.05
128.73
45.75
82.47
30.37
13.17
109. 13
15.05
$25.18"
$457
448
334
Johnson, Grace E
Shortley, Robert L...
Clerk, to Jan. 17
Investigator-.
328
584
Stout, Ruth G
Vaughan, Marv L
Philbin, Richard E...
Strain, Mary L
Ware, WellfordH....
Ware, WellfordH....
Administrative clerk..
Clerical assistant
Investigator, from Jan.
21.
Clerical assistant from
Jan. 23.
Assistant counsel, to
Jaai. 27.
Counsel, from Jan. 28 .
351
378
192
82
646
82
Total.
4,641.22
733. 74
25.48
3,882
1 Including additional compensation as authorized by law.
I certify that the above services were rendered for the use of the Senate, and
I further certify that the employment of the persons named on the within payroll
is not prohibited by any provision of law limiting the availability of the appro-
priation involved.
Grace E. Johnson, Clerk.
Approved :
Carl Hayden, Chairman.
The Chairman. With respect to the report from the Subcommittee
on Privileges and Elections, covering the investigation under Resolu-
tion 187, known as the H-H-H report, that was already received in
evidence for limited purposes.
Since it has been discussed as to what actually was being done on
it, I think, in fairness to the Senate, it ought to be received, in addition
to just the question of jurisdiction as to what activities were being
carried on under that, and what was the subject matter of the inves-
tigation.
It has already been referred to by Mr. Williams in one of his state-
ments here and arguments, and I think it would throw light on the
activities and matters that were under investigation.
And it is not received with any idea, or for the purpose of either
proving true or false any of the matters which were investigated by
that committee.
I take it there is no objection.
Mr. Williams. Are you talking about the report ?
The Chairman. I am talking about the H-H-H report of the Sub-
committee on Privileges and Elections of the Rules Committee of the
United States Senate.
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 525
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. We do not concede that it is a complete
report of its activities, but we do not object to its going in for what
it is.
The Chairman. It is not to be considered as either proof or disproof
of any of the so-called charges that we are investigating, whether they
are actual charges or not.
In other words, we do not expect it to be received as evidence on
the merits of any of those matters which we are investigating.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. I wanted to call this to the Chair's atten-
tion, if all the evidence is in, and I assume it is.
We have nothing further to offer and I understand counsel on the
other side has nothing further to offer. Is that correct ?
Mr. Chadwick. That is correct, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Now, Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. I would say that Senator Stennis has put a question
to the Chair as to whether or not we have all the matters that the com-
mittee would like to have in the record.
I wish he would indicate what he has in mind if there are any mat-
ters that he thinks ought to be in, so that we would know.
Senator Stennis. I have asked for information as to just what proof
was in with reference to these designations of the so-called classified
documents.
I did not know whether there was documentary evidence introduced
by the gentleman who testified a few minutes ago.
Was there documentary evidence introduced by Mr, Nelson ?
Mr. DE FuRiA. We had covered that.
Senator Stennis. I want to ask this question of counsel of either
group of attorneys: If they are satisfied that sufficient proof is in
witli reference to those documents and their meaning.
Mr. Williams. I think so, Senator. We have submitted a brief on
this subject which you have obviously not had a chance to read because
I have just handed it to you.
Senator Stennis. There is information in the record, then ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Senator Stennis. Mr. Chadwick ?
Mr. Chadwick. Yes, sir. We had submitted copies of every sup-
porting document of which we had information, except possibly the
one which the witness read today, and that has now been read into the
record.
Senator Stennis. That satisfies me, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. The matter I would like to address to the Chair's
attention, is this :
As I understand it, the investigative function of the committee is
now at an end formally, as least, insofar as these proceedings are
concerned, and the committee now passes to its decisional functions,
whatever form that will take, and that, of course, is up to the com-
mittee.
Now, I feel that a proceeding of this kind, as I think everybody who
has participated in it does, is a judicial proceeding, or, at least, a quasi-
judicial proceeding, and I should like to suggest at this time to the
committee that the spirit of the act of Congress called the Administra-
tive Procedures Act be followed insofar as the decisional function
526 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
of this committee is concerned, the spirit and the letter of the Adminis-
trative Procedures Act, which was passed by the Congress signed by
the President 8 years ago.
It provides that no officer or employee or agent who has been engaged
in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions having
any agency in any case shall in that or a factually related case partici-
pate or advise in the decision.
Now, obviously, in the decisional functioning of this committee, in
all probability, if it follows precedent, a report will be written.
I feel that this proceeding, or, if I may say so, Mr. Chairman, has
been an advocacy proceeding.
Mr. Bozelle ancl I, within the limitations of our capacity, have tried
to present the law and the facts on Senator McCarthy's side.
Because it is of the nature of a judicial proceeding and because there
are accusations here, counsel for the other side in the role are applicants
and have taken positions contrary to our position on the law and of
the facts and in one instance on a whole charge.
So that it seems to me that in the interest of keeping this a com-
pletely judicial proceeding, I do not believe that it would be reasonable
to ask counsel participating in the decisional function in the drafting
of a preparatory or preliminary report, because I feel it would be call-
ing upon them to do a superhuman task; namely, taking themselves
outside of their role as advocates, asking them to pass upon their own
briefs in relationship to ours, and that, therefore, my suggestion is
tliat at this stage counsel, independent counsel be brought in to read
this record and consult with the committee in its decisional function.
Now, at the outset of this proceeding, you will recall, Mr. Chairman,
that it was the feeling of Mr. Bozelle and myself that we could not
be in a position of being employees of this committee, and at the same
time, defense counsel for Senator McCarthy. I felt that accepting
compensation from this committee would be in direct conflict with my
role as defense counsel, and accordingly I declined to do so.
I respectfully suggest, and this is not meant to be critical of anyone,
that independent counsel come in at this point with the funds that are
available as a result of our declination of compensation, that inde-
pendent counsel be selected by the committee to help pass upon the
conflicting theories of law and the conflicting arguments on facts that
have been advanced between our side of the table and counsel who
have been preparing the charges on the other side of the table.
I think that it is within the spirit of the Administrative Procedure
Act that this should be done. I think it is within the spirit of this
proceeding as a quasi- judical proceeding where there are two sides,
one side putting vehemently forth their side and the other side, counsel
for the committee has assumed the role of prosecution in many in-
stances, and I am not critical of him. It is impossible not to have a
proceeding of this kind an adversary proceeding. We would be un-
realistic if it were not an adversary proceeding, but I do not think that
it is realistic to expect that any lawyer can be superhuman enough
to try a case and then sit as judge or sit in the council wherein the
judgments are rendered.
For that reason, I respectfully suggest that both the theory and the
practice of the Administrative Procedure Act be followed, that inde-
pendent counsel come in, read this record, read the conflicting theories
of law, read the conflicting views of fact that have been advanced by
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 527
counsel on both sides, and serve as real counsel independent to this
committee, without having been in any instance in the role of advocate.
The Chair]max. Well, I will say to you that so far as the committee
is concerned, it stated its position very clearly in the opening statement
made by the chairman. That statement was submitted to the members
of the committee and that is the view of the committee.
That is contrary to what you have said. I am not going to reread
it. I think it is well known that we took the position that we were
a semi judicial committee. We adopted rules of evidence in order to
screen material that came in, but we considered it our duty first of
all, to make an investigation of the facts.
We have our staff people, including our attorneys, making that inves-
tigation, gathering together all the facts which helped or hurt Senator
McCarthy. We wanted it for the purpose of being able to advise the
Senate, and we have done the very best we could so that we would
have all the facts before the Senate when we finally get through.
Mr. Williams. Now, would you set
The Chairman. I want to say we stated it very clearly. I don't
know whether somebody can give me a copy of that now. I think
it would be good to read it again, to refresh everybody's recollection
on the stand we took.
]\Iay I say we were absolutely sincere in tliat, and I don't think we
have changed our position for a moment.
At the risk of boring some of the people who have heard it before,
I am going to read it again :
''At the outset of this hearing, the committee desires to state in
general terms what is involved in Senate Resolution 301 and the Senate
order on it, which authorized the appointment of the select committee
to consider in behalf of the Senate the so-called Flanders resolution
of censure, together with all amendments proposed to the resolution.
"The committee, in the words of the Senate order, was 'was author-
ized to hold hearings, to sit and act at such times and places during
the sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods of the Senate, to require
by subpena, or otherwise, the attendance of such witnesses and the
production of such correspondence, books, papers, and documents, and
to take such testimony as it deems advisable, and that the committee
be instructed to act and make a report to this body prior to the
adjournment sine die of the Senate in the 2d session of the 8ord
Congress.' "
That is the end of the quote from the. order, which was the charter
for this committee.
"That is a broad grant of power, carrying with it a heavy respon-
sibility— a responsibility which the committee takes seriously. In
beginning its duties, the committee found few precedents to serve as
a guide. It is true tliat there had been other censure resolutions before
the Senate in the past, but the acts complained of were, for the most
part, single occurrences which happened in the presence of the Senate
or one of its committees. Under such circumstances, prolonged in-
vestigations and hearings were not necessary.
"It should be pointed out that the some forty-odd alleged instances of
misconduct on the part of Senator McCarthy referred to this com-
mittee are involved and complex, both with respect to matters of fact
and law. With reference to the time element, the incidents are alleged
to have happened within a period covering several years. In addition.
528 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
3 Senate committees already have held hearings on 1 ov more phases
of the alleged incidents of misconduct. Obviously, with all this in
mind, the committee liad good reason for concluding it faced an unpre-
cedented situation Avhich would require adoption of procedures, all
within the authority granted it in the Senate order, tliat would enable
it to perform the duties assigned wihin the limited time given by the
Senate.
"The committee interprets its duties, functions, and responsibilities
under the Senate order to be as follows:
"1. To analyze the charges set forth in the amendments and to
determine :
"a. If there were duplications which could be eliminated,
"b. If any of the charges were of such a nature that even if
the allegations were established as factually true, yet there would
be strong reasons for believing that they did not constitute a
ground for censure.
"2. To thoroughly investigate all charges not eliminated under No.
1 in order to secure relevant and material facts concerning them and
the names of witnesses or records which can establish the facts at the
hearings to be held.
"In this connection, the committee believes it should function as an
impartial investigating agency to develop by direct contacts in the
field and by direct examination of Senate records all relevant and
material facts possible to secure.
"When Senate Resolution 301 and amendments offered were re-
ferred to the committee, the committee interprets this action to mean
that from that time on, the resolution and charges became the sole
responsibility of the Senate. To state it another way, the Senator, or
Senators, who offered Resolution 301, and proposed amendments
thereto, have no legal responsibility from tliat point on for the con-
duct of the investigations and hearings authorized by the order of
the Senate. The hearings are not to be adversary in character. Under
this interpretation, it became the committee's duty then to get all the
facts and material relevant to the charges irrespective of whether the
facts sustained the charges or showed them to be without foundation.
"The foregoing statement seems to be necessary in view of a wide-
spread misunderstanding that the Senator who introduced tlie reso-
lution of censure into the Senate and the Senators who offered amend-
ments thereto, setting up specific charges against the Senator from
Wisconsin, are the complaining witnesses, or the parties plaintiff, in
this proceeding. That is not true, as has been explained. However,
because of the fact that they had made some study of the situation,
the committee did give them an opportunity to submit informational
documentation of the charges they had offered. Also they were asked
to submit the names of any witnesses who might have firsthand knowl-
edge of the matters charged and who could give relevant and material
testimony in the hearings.
"Since matters of law also will be involved in reaching evahiation
of the facts developed, pertinent rules of the Senate and sections of
law, together with precedents and decisions by competent tribunals,
should be briefed and made a part of the hearing record, the committee
believes.
"3. To hold hearings where the committee can present witnesses
and documentary evidence for the purpose of placing on record, for
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 529
later use by the Senate the evidence and other information o:athered
during the preliminary investigation period, and for the development
of additional evidence and information as the hearings proceed.
"The resolution of censure presents to the Senate an issue with re-
spect to the conduct and possible punishment of one of its Members.
The debate in the Senate preceding the vote to refer the matter to a
select committee made it abundantly clear that the proceedings neces-
sary to a proper dis]30sal of the resolution and the amendments pro-
posed, both in the Senate and in the select committee, would be ju-
dicial or quasi-judicial in nature, and for that reason should be con-
ducted in a judicial manner and atmosphere, so far as compatible with
the investigative functions of the committee in its preliminary and
continuing search for evidence and information bearing on all phases
of the issues presented.
''Inherent in the situation created by the resolution of censure and
the charges made, is the right of the Senator against whom the
charges were made to be present at the hearings held by the select
committee. He should also be permitted to be represented by counsel
and should have the right of cross-examination. This is somewhat
contrary to the practice by Senate committees in the past, in hearings
of this nature, but the present committee believes that the accused
Senator should have these rights. He or his counsel, but not both,
shall be permitted to make objections to the introduction of testimony,
but the argument on the objections may be had or withheld at the
discretion of tlie chairman. The Senator under charges should be
permitted to present witnesses and documentary evidence in his be-
half, but of course, this should be done in compliance with the policy
laid down by the committee in its notice of the hearing, which is a part
of this record.
"In general, tlie committee wishes it understood that the regula-
tions adopted are for the purpose of insuring a judicial hearing and
a judicial atmosphere as befits the importance of the issues raised.
For that reason, and in accordance with the order, the committee be-
lieves to be the sentiment of the Senate, all activities which are not
permitted in the Senate itself will not be permitted in this hearing."
That had reference to the physical activities, and so on. That took
care of the television, radio, and pictures being taken during the period
of the hearing.
"4. When the hearings have closed, to prepare a report and submit
it to the Senate. Under the order creating this committee, this must
be done before the present Senate adjourns sine die.
"By way of comment, let me say that the inquiry we are engaged
in is of a special character which differentiates it from the usual leg-
islative inquiry. It involves the internal affairs of the Senate itself
in the exercise of a high constitutional function. It is by nature a
judicial or semi judicial function, and we shall attempt to conduct it
as such. The procedures outlined are not necessarily appropriate to
congressional investigations and should not, therefore, be construed
as in any sense intended as a model appropriate to such inquiries. We
hope what we are doing will be found to conform to sound senatorial
principles and traditions in the special field in which the committee
is operating.
"It has been said before, but it will do no harm to repeat, that the
members of this committee did not seek this appointment. The quali-
530 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
fications laid down by the Senate order creating the commission, said
the connnittee should be made up of 3 Democrat Senators and 3
Republican Senators. This was the only condition named in the
order. However, in a larger sense the proper authorities of the Sen-
ate were charged with the responsibility of attempting to choose mem-
bers of the Senate for this committee who could, and would, conduct
a fair and impartial investigation and hearing. Members of the
committee deemed their selection by the Senate authorities as a trust.
We realize we are human. We know, and the American people know,
that there has been a controversy raging over the country through
a number of years in connection with the activities of the Senator
against whom the resolution is directed. INIembers of this committee
have been conscious of that controversy; they have seen, heard, and
read of the activities, charges, and countercharges, and being human,
they may have at times expressed their impressions with respect to
events that were happening while they were happening. However,
each of the Senators who make up this special select connnittee are
mature men with a wide background of experience which should
enable them to disregard any impressions or preconceived notions they
may have had in the past respecting the controversies which have
been going on in public for many years.
"We approach this matter as a duty imposed upon us and which we
feel that we should do our very best to discharge in a proper manner.
We realize the United States Senate is on trial, and we hope our con-
duct will be such as to maintain the American sense of fair play and
the high traditions and dignity of the United States Senate under
the authority given it by the Constitution."
Now, the special request made by counsel will be considered by the
committee.
However, I think the committee has done its level best in making
the rulings in accordance with the old, established rules of evidence
developed through the centuries, in Great Britain or England, and
in this country, as best we could, and in accordance with those tradi-
tions and those rules of evidence.
We have tried to interpret them fairly. At times it may have been
thought by some that we were wrong about our construction, our
interpretation.
That, of course, occurs in every hearing in which there is some
controversy.
To my knowledge, in all cases I ever tried as a judge, I never did
please everybody. My rulings at times were thought to be wrong
and they appealed to the Supreme Court, as they had a right to do.
On this particular situation, the Senate is the final authority. We
can only make our report, and the record is there, and, as I have said
frequently, the Senate, itself, has no rule respecting materiality or
relevancy.
Senator McCarthy and/or those who take the position that he should
not be censured or want to defend his position are entitled to bring in
anything that the Senate will let them bring in, and it seems to me,
under the general province of the authority there, they can take about
anything and bring in everything under the sun before the Senate.
However, in order to do our job, within the time we had, we had
to adopt some rules that would govern the screening of evidence, and
that is what we have tried to do here, and it is obvious in any case of
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 531
that kind we probably would have some exceptions or some differences
of opinion with respect to what was the proper evidence and wnat
would be the proper ruling.
So, as I sav, the committee will take that matter under advisement.
Mr. Williams. May it be considered as a formal motion, Mr. Chair-
man?
The Chairman. It may be considered as a formal motion, which we
will dispose of probably in executive session, and I do not know
whether we will announce the result immediately, or whether it will
come in the report. I cannot say as to that.
Now, members of the committee are here and if they want to take
exception to this, or if they want to consider it further in executive
session, that may be done.
Mr. Williams. May I ask, Mr. Chairman, if you will advise us as
to what the decision of the committee is on this motion, please, when
it is made ?
The Chairman. We will attempt to do that ; yes.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. We have here a series of letters from Senator
Flanders. I don't know what they contain. Whether they will be
considered or not will be left up to the committee.
Senator Stennis. They are not in evidence, are they ?
The Chairman. They are not in evidence.
Mr. WiLLiAiMS. I assume the committee will not consider them, Mr.
Chairman ?
The Chairman. We are not going to consider them as evidence,
that is one thing certain ; but whether or not any of the legal points
that may be raised as to the law, that will be another question which
the committee will pass on.
Mr. Williams. I wonder if the Chair would direct Senator Flanders
to serve on us such things as he serves on this committee expressing
his views because we would certainly be interested in what Senator
Flanders has to say on the law.
The Chairman. If we decide to take notice of what he files with us,
we certainly will direct that he have them served upon you, or we
will do so ourselves. At this moment we have not taken official notice
of anything he has sent to us with respect to any of these matters.
Mr. Williams. We have not either.
The Chairman. Now, since we ar¬ a court, since we had direct
contact, investigative work to be done for the basis of getting all the
facts and all the law, when we recess, it will be a recesf subject tc the
call of the Chair but that has not been done yet.
Now, I have done all the talking at this stage, and I am going to call
on all the members of the committee if they would like to say some-
thing about this entire matter, about counsel, or whatever they would
like to say.
The Chairman. Senator Ervin?
Senator Ervin. No, sir.
The Chairman. Senator Stennis?
Senator Stennis. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to say except
about this motion here with reference to the counsel.
I can fully understand Mr. Williams. It is almost habitual with
attorneys to look upon themselves as beinir adversaries in matters in
court, or in a major matter of this kind, but we were looking for men
532 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
wlio were seasoned and learned in the law and who know how to handle
facts, men of unquestioned character and integrity, to approacii this
matter in a nonpartisan, nonpolitical and impartial manner, and not
our agents, but our helpers, with reference to the facts, and lielp us
witli respect to the law.
That is what they have done.
They have not even been permitted to make objections to the testi-
mony.
For one, I am certain that when we go to decide the controlling
facts in the law, that every man, each of the six members is going to
have to decide for himself, after getting such information as they can,
I think that will be the extent of their services to us; I think that it
would be helpful to us on those lines.
I feel the need of their help. At the same time, I feel the same free-
dom to call on Mr. Williams and will on any point that troubles me as
to the law or as to the facts and that would be my attitude on the attor-
neys.
The Chairman. Senator Carlson ?
Senator Carlsox. Mr, Chairman, just on the motion by Mr. Wil-
liams which was certainly interesting and I think is very timely, the
point that I would like to raise is that I sincerely hope, as one member
of this committee, that we might conclude and secure a report, con-
clude the hearings and the work of this committee at the earliest pos-
sible opportunity. I think that is in the interest of the committee,
Senaor McCarthy, and the Senate ; and having had some experience,
of course, the Chair bore the greatest brunt of this in trying to secure
counsel for the committee — I believe it would be equally difficult or
even more difficult to try to get new counsel now to evaluate these
matters that have been collected here by both counsel for the conmiit-
tee and counsel for Senator McCarthy. It seems to me that if we
should follow that recommendation, and I will have to admit it has
some merit, we would be delayed, in my opinion, for weeks, and it is
for that reason that I sincerely hope that we will give it consideration
but with some thought in regard to time rather than just purely on
the merits of it.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. Senator Ervin.
Senator Ervin. In spite of my silence, I would like to say that what
the chairman, Senator Stennis, and Senator Carlson have said ex-
press my views.
I would like to say to both Mr. Chadwick, Mr. de Furia, and Mr.
Williams, that they have all been very helpful to me and I want to
commend all of them, and I want to say that I have admired the way
each one of these counsel have approached this matter.
I think they have been a great help to all of the committee — counsel
on, as Mr. Williams says, both sides, if you take tliat position.
The Chairman. I would like to join with my colleague in saying
that as far as I have been able to observe, I have worked very closely
with these men and I have the utmost confidence in the fairness of
Mr. Cliadwick and INfr. de Furia and other members of the investi-
gative staff, and I can repeat again that tliey wei-e given directions to
get all the facts no matter whose position they supj^oi'ted, or whose
position they made untenable and that they were to l)riof all of it, get
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 533
everytliing that bore on the subject; that could, by the remotest sug-
gestion be important to a decision or throw light on the decision to be
made.
I think they have done that.
As I indicated during the course of this hearing, it is a difficult
matter for men who have been used to practicing in courts to step into
proceedings of this kind.
It is about the only place in the world where you will find a proceed-
ing of this kind where they have to do the investigative work on both
sides and be as fair as possible, as humanly possible impartial in the
gathering of the facts and in the presentation of the law.
The fact that they may differ in some respects with the distinguished
Senator, distinguished counsel for Senator McCarthy, is no indica-
tion in my opinion that they have not tried their level best to be fair.
On the matter of objections and so on, I have advised them in the
beginning they could not make objections. It would be up to the
Chairman to follow the proceedings closely and to indicate when he
thought the matter was getting out of bounds, the hearing was getting
out of bounds on a particular issue that was raised.
Now, we have attempted to do that. I realize that is somewhat new.
Too many times in hearings, particularly with reference to hearings
on appointments made by the President, held by the committees, there
has been a tendency to allow the Senator who might object to one of
the appointments to be the prosecuting attorney, or the plaintiff, and
the appointee to be the defendant. I think that has resulted many
times in bringing the Senate and its procedure into disrepute before
the people. It should be a Senate function just like it is a function
of the President when he makes the appointment, before he makes it,
to get all the facts he can with respect to the appointee. We have to
advise and consent and under those circumstances, we should likewise
be just as fair about it as we can, and conduct that type of a hearing.
This is, in my opinion, something after that nature. We are not a
court ; we cannot make any final decision. We have gathered the facts.
We report the facts to the Senate as we have them. We give the entire
record. It is all printed and submitted and each Senator will have a
copy and we also have the authority if we so desire, to make some con-
clusions of law and make recommendations.
Now, whether we will go so far as to make recommendations has
not been determined by this committee. I think we might be able to
discharge our duty by not making any recommendations.
On the other hand, it has been the custom for committees to make
recommendations. Just what w^e will do in that matter the future
will have to determine.
I want to also express my appreciation to Mr. Williams, Senator
McCarthy, for the way they have been able to cooperate with us in
this search. I realize the situation became tense at times but that is
no more than w^hat happens usually in investigations, particularly if
there has been any controversy, or high emotional state of public mind
connected with it.
I also express my appreciation on behalf of the whole committee
for the cooperation we have received all around.
The committee will be in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
(Whereupon, at 5: 18 o'clock p. m,, the committee recessed subject
to reconvening at the call of the Chair.)
HEAEINGS ON SENATE EESOLUTION 301 *
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 17. 1954
United States Senate,
Select Committee To Study Censure Charges
Pursuant to Senate Order on Senate Resolution 301,
Washington^ B. C.
The select committee met, pursuant to call, at 3 : 20 p. m., in room
422, Senate Office Building, Senator Arthur V. Watkins, chairman,
presiding.
Present: Senator Watkins (chainnan), and John M. Jex, clerk of
the committee :
The Chairman. Pursuant to an understanding reached in public
session of the Select Committee of Censure under Senate Resolution
301, Senate Parliamentarian Charles L. Watkins has appeared for
the purpose of answering the questions referred to in that under-
standing.
Mr. Watkins, you are the Parliamentarian of the United States
Senate ?
Mr. Watkins. I am.
The Chairman. Your name is Charles L. Watkins ?
Mr. Watkins. That is right ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. And you have been Parliamentarian how long?
Mr. Watkins. Since 1935, when the Senate gave m^e the title of
Parliamentarian and Journal clerk. From 1919 to that time I had
been the Journal clerk of the Senate, and had also acted as Parlia-
mentarian since 1924.
The Chairman. You have served the Senate of the United States
how long ?
Mr. Watkins. The 1st of December this year will be 50 years, lack-
ing a few months that I was temporarily off the Senate roll and on
the personal payroll of Senator James P. Clarke, of Arkansas. About
49 years at the present time.
From 1904 until 1914, except the few months referred to above, I
was in the office of Senator Clarke, but, of course, drawing my salary
from the United States Senate.
The Chairman. Senator Clarke of what State?
Mr. Watkins. Arkansas. James P. Clarke, of Arkansas.
The Chairman. You were one of his secretaries ?
Mr. Watkins. Yes. At that time he only had two employees, a
secretary and a stenographer.
The Chairman. And you were carried on the payroll as a secretary ?
535
536 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Watkins. I first entered his employ in 1904 as a stenographer,
but in 1907 I was given the position of his secretary, which I held
until 1913. I was given a patronage position in 1914 in the office of
the Secretary of the Senate, after the Democrats had gotten control
of the Senate in 1913.
The Chairman. And you have been with the Senate ever since ?
Mr. Watkins. Ever since.
The Chairman. Mr. Watkins, I have prepared a letter to you which
I think states rather clearly the problems to be submitted to you and
an outline of the background, I am going to read that letter to you
so we will have it in the record, and when we come to the questions
mentioned therein you can answer each one as we go along.
The letter is under date of September 17, 1954 :
Dear Mr. Watkins : I have been requested by the entire membership of the
select committee of the Senate to obtain your opinion as Parliamentarian of
the Senate upon the following questions concerning the constitution and mem-
bership of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of the Committee on
Rules and Administration, as the same was in the year 1952, during the i)eriod
following the resignation of Senator Monroney, and between .January 1, 1953,
and the date when the new committees of the 83d Congress were organized.
It is my understanding, always subject to your information, that this commit-
tee was organized in the 82d Congress with five members, namely, Chairman
Gillette and Senators Welkers, Henuings, Monroney, and Hendrickson, and that
subsequently Senators Welker and then Senator Gillette resigned, and Senator
Henuings became chairman.
Mr. Watkins. I have no official knowledge of that, but that is my
understanding, just based on, you might call it, hearsay.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr, Watkins. Of course, the records, themselves, would show
that.
The Chairman. That is right. I don't think there is any dispute
on the record.
Quoting still further from the letter :
Later Senator Monroney was in Europe at a time when business of the sub-
committee was pressing. Chairman Hayden of the Rules Committee thereupon
asked him to return or, in the alternative, to submit his resignation. The latter
course was pursued. Senator Hayden accepted the resignation and appointed
himself as the third member. This three-man committee functioned until the
reorganization of the 83d Congress and has been continued since that time as a
three-man committee.
This recital of facts, while we believe it to be correct, is not intended to con-
trol your opinion but, rather, to supply our background for the following
questions :
"1. In your opinion, was the three-man subcommittee, as constituted by Sen-
ator Hayden, after the resignation of Senator Monroney, by appointing him-
self as a third member, a legal committee for the discharge of regular busi-
ness, under the rules and precedents of the Senate?"
Mr, Watkins. We have very few precedents of direct action by
the committees. Usually matters of this kind are settled in the com-
mittees, themselves, and no written report is made to the Senate for
the Senate to pass upon.
Paragraph 2 of rule 3 of the standing rules of the Senate, relating
to commencement of daily sessions, says :
"A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators duly chosen
and sworn,"
I think the general supposition is that, unless the coimiiittee has
regulations in contravention of the Senate rules, the Senate rules,
wherever applicable, would govern its proceedings.
HEARIXGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 537
On that basis, while the subcommittee was authorized for 5 mem-
bers, when 2 members resigned and that was followed by the resig-
nation of Senator Monroney and the appointment by Senator Hay den,
the chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration, of
himself to fill the vacancy, that constituted a majority of the 5-man
subcommittee.
The Chairmax. Could that majority conduct the business of the
committee '^
Mr. Watkins. I think it could. That is my opinion. I think they
could for the reason that three constituted a majority of the authorized
subcommittee membership; and, as far as I know, there is no man-
datory requirement for a chairman of a committee to fill any vacancy
on subcommittees.
The Chairman. No mandatory requirement?
Mr. Watkins. No.
The Chairman. You mean he does not have to ?
Mr. Watkins. He does not have to.
The Chairman. But before the committee could act, he would at
least have to have a majority?
Mr. Watkins. I think he would have to have a majority of the
entire authorized membership of the subcommittee, which was the
case when he appointed himself.
The Chairman. I will continue with this letter :
This question apparently involves the authority of the chairman of the Rules
Committee. Senatoi- Hayden, to make the appointment of himself from the full
committee to the subcommittee at a time when the Senate was not in session.
Would that make any difference? Would he have the authority to
appoint himself?
Mr. Watkins. I have a precedent of the Senate here, on August
24, 1912, citing the Congressional Record, 62d Congress, 2d session,
page 11812, in which it is stated that Mr. Luke Lea, of Tennessee,
because of illness in his family, asked to be relieved from further
service as a member of a subcommittee of the Committee on Privileges
and Elections investigating campaign expenses in the elections of
1904 and 1908.
Now% this request was made to the Senate, itself, by Senator Lea.
The President pro tempore, Mr. Jacob H. Gallinger, of New Hamp-
shire, said that would seem to be a matter for the committee rather
than for the Senate.
Mr. Lea stated he took up the matter with the chairman of the
subcommittee and that he had no objection, and Mr. Boies Penrose,
Sfinator from Pennsylvania, then said :
It is very clear that the chairman of the subcommittee has not the power to
fill vacancies. That resides in the chairman of the Committee on Privileges and
Fi'pctions.
At that time this was a standing committee of the Senate.
The President pro tempore said :
"That is what the Chair would hold."
So, in view of this precedent — the only one I know of — the chair-
man of the Rules and Administration Committee did have the right
to fill tliat vacancy on the subcommittee by appointing himself. If
he had seen proper or if it had been advisable, he could have ap-
pointed any other member of the Committee on Rules and Admin-
istration to that subcommittee.
538 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The Chairman. Would the fact that he did not submit this ap-
pointment, which he made of liimself to the subconnnittee, to the
full committee for approval have any effect in making invalid his
appointment ?
Mr. Watkins. I think, generally speaking, the cjuiirman of a
committee, under custom at least, has the power and the right to
appoint members of subcommittees without submitting them to the
full committee.
The Chairman. And that would be particularly true, would it
not, where the Senate was not in session?
Mr. Watkins. Yes, where the Senate was not in session, as prob-
ably the other members of the committee were at their homes or
perhaps various places in the country.
The Chairman. Now, in respect to the answer you have just given
(m the question of whether Senator Hayden had the right to appoint
himself or any other member a member of the Subcommittee on
Privileges and Elections, would it make a stronger case if at the
time the Senate was not in session and there were pressing matters
pending before the said subcommittee which required a quorum in
order to act?
Mr. Watkins. It might add some weight to the emergency of the
situation. It might have required someone to be appointed to till
that vacancy and raise the subcommittee up to a point wliere it could
become operative as a valid subcommittee.
The Chairman. Would it, under such circumstances, be necessary
for Senator Hayden to have the approval of the full committee
before he made such an appointment ?
Mr. Watkins. I don't think it would, unless there is some pro-
vision in the rules of the committee that requires the chairman of
the committee, in making subcommittee appointments, to advise or
report to the full committee for their approval.
I don't know what the rules of the Committee on Rules provide ; but,
generally speaking, I doubt if there are any rules in any of these
committees now that require, in every case, formal approval by the
members of the committee itself of the appointments to subcommittees.
The Chairman. Particularly during the time when the Senate
is not in session ?
Mr. Watkins. That is particularly trae when the Senate is not in
session and the members of tlie committee perhaps are scattered
over the various States of the Union.
The Chairman. Then, under those circumstances, it would be
your opinion, as I understand you, that Senator Hayden would have
the right to make the appointment to fill a vacancy without sub-
mitting it for approval of the whole committee?
Mr. Watkins. That is my judgment.
The Chairman. No. 2 :
In your opinion, was Senator Hayden required to appoint two new members
of the subcommittee to fill the vacancies resulting from the resignation of
Senators Gillette and Welker?
Mr. Watkins. Following the practice in the Senate itself, I don't
think he would be required to make appointments to raise it up to
the authorized number.
Now, we frequently have special committees created where the Vice
President is authorized to appoint, under special resolution, a certain
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 539
number of Senators, and sometimes there are instances wliere those
connnittees go beyond the Congress. Some of the members may have
been defeated or resigned, which created vacancies, and there have
been cases where the Vice President never did make any appointments
to fill the vacancies. He just let those special committees rock along;
and I think, by anology, probably the same rule might apply to sub-
committee procedure.
The Chairman. That would be true as long as they had at least
a majority ?
Mr. Watkixs. As long as there was a majority of the authorized
membership actually serving.
The Chairman. Because then they could do business?
Mr. Wa'I'Kixs. They could do business to the same extent as if they
had the authorized membership.
The Chairman. No. 4 :
Did Senator Hayden have the authority at such time to recognize Senator Hen-
niugs as the chairman of said subcommittee?
Mr. AV ATKINS. I would think that Senator Hayden did have author-
ity to a])point a new chairman of that acting three-man subcommittee.
The Chairman. Then when he recognized Senator Hennings and
called him chairman, that in effect was an appointment as chairman?
Mr. Watkins. It would imply that he was chairman. Senator
Hayden would be the only man who would have the authority to ap-
point a chairman by reason of the fact he was chairman of the Com-
mittee on Rules and Administration.
The Chairman. And he could appoint the chairman ?
Mr. Watkins, He could appoint the chairman of that subcommittee.
The Chairman. No. 5 :
Was said subcommittee, as organized with three members, capable, by a work-
ing majority, to determine sucli matters as wliat should constitute a legal quorum
for the taking of testimony, including the right to designate one member as a
legal quorum for such purpose?
Mr. Watkins. I think there is a provision in the Reorganization
Act which also, for practical purposes, is a part of the Senate rules
and which empower a committee or subcommittee to authorize the
appointment of one Senator for the purpose of taking testimony.
The Chairman. In other words, they could recognize a quorum of
one for the purpose of taking testimony ?
Mr. Watkins. There is a provision in the rules, I think. I will look
at the Senate rules.
The Chairman. I know the courts have so held.
Mr. Watkins. I think, if my recollection is correct, there is a direct
amendment of the Senate rule in this Reorganization Act, as amended.
Here it is : Paragraph (b) of subdivision 3 of rule 25 :
Each standing committee, and each subcommittee of any such committee, is
authorized to fix a lesser number than one-third of its entire membership who
shall constitute a quorum thereof for the purpose of taking sworn testimony.
So I think that would give the subcommittee the right to designate
one Senator to take sworn testimony.
The Chairman. And the answer to No. 5 would be yes ?
Mr. Watkins. Yes.
540 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
The Chairman. No. 6 :
Was the said subcommittee, so oi-ganized, aiithoi'ized to make a report to tlie
full committee, simied by its three members, Senators Henning, Hayden, and
Hendrickson. and filed with the full Committee on Rules and Administration,
with Senator Hayden as chairuiau?
Mr. Watkins. I think the subcommittee of three members had the
right, and, after they had reached a conchision and drafted a report,
it was their duty, to submit it to the full Committee on Rules and
Administration.
The Chairman. No. 7:
In September of 1951, Senate Resolution 187 was referred to the Committee
on Rules and Administration. This was a resolution introduced by Senator
Benton looking toward the expulsion of Senator McCarthy from the United
States Senate. The resolution was in turn referred to the Subcommittee on
Privileges and Elections. On September 28, 1051, the Subcommittee on Privileges
and Elections began holding hearings on this resolution. The constitueu(.'y
of the subcommittee at this time was Senators Gillette. Henning, Monroney,
Welker, and Hendrickson. In September of 1952, while the proceedings were
still underway, Senators Welker and Gillette resigned. They were not re-
placed. In November of 1952 Senator Monroney resigned and Senator Hayden
appointed himself on the subcommittee to replace him. Thus, only 2 of the
original 5 Senators who had heard the evidence during the first year of the
investigation remained. In a quasi-judicial proceeding such as an expulsion
matter can a subcommittee file a valid legal report when less than lialf of its
members have heard the evidence?
Mr. Watkins. I would think so. The subcommittee had power to
act. Tlie 3 members, being a majority of that subcommittee, could
file a report with the full committee even though, in my judgment, 1
of the Senators had not heard the testimony.
The Chairman. There would be no assumption that he had not
considered the testimony even though he had not heard it ?
Mr. Watkins. He might have had or would have had an onnor-
tunity to read the printed hearings.
The Chaiioian. Or the transcript?
Mr. Watkixs. Yes; the transcript.
The Chairman. Prepared by the reportei"?
Mr. Watkins. Yes.
Applying the same lule in Senate proceedings. Senators would have
a right to vote when they haven't heard a single speech or dor 't kr>r»w
anything about a proposition at all.
The Chairman. And yet they vote?
Mr. Watkins. They come in there and vote.
The Chairman. And they could do that if this committee had
reported favorably a resolution to expel, say, Senator X ?
Mr. Watkins. That is right.
The Chairman. Any of the Members of the Senate or all of the
Members of the Senate could come in and vote even though they had
not heard any of it?
Mr. Watkins. They would be required to vote, under the rule, on
a rollcall vote if they were present.
The Chairman. That seems to cover it. Mr. Watkins. The com-
mittee thanks you.
(Whereupon, at 3 : 48 p. m., the committee adjourned.)
HEAKINGS ON SENATE KESOLUTION 301
thursday, september 23, 1954
United States Senate,
Select Committi:e to Study Censure Charges,
Pursuant to Senate Order on Senate Kesolution 301,
Washi7U/toti, D. C.
The select committee met, pursuant to call, at 5 : 35 p. m., in room
442, Senate Office Building, Senator Arthur V. Watkins (chairman)
presiding.
Present : Senator Watkins (chairman) .
Also present: Edward Bennett Williams, counsel to Senator
McCarthy,
The Chairman. This can be tied right in with the other, is that
all right ?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
The Chairman. In order to give Senator McCarthy's attorney,
Mr. Williams, an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Watkins, the
parliamentarian of the Senate, he has been recalled and he is now
present, ready for such cross-examination. He was giving opinion
evidence, which is the reason for my not putting him under oath.
Mr. Williams. I do not make any point of Mr. Watkins not being
under oath.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. WATKINS, PARLIAMENTARIAN OE
THE SENATE OE THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Williams. Mr. Watkins, I wanted to ask you just a couple of
questions of a parliamentary nature, and they turn around the activi-
ties of what I refer to as the ''Gillette committee," which consisted
originally of Senators Gillette, Welker, Monroney, Hennings, and
Hendrickson ; and, by way of orientation, that was the Subcommittee
on Privileges and Elections, to which Senate Kesolution 187 was
referred, in September 1951.
Mr. Watkins. Well, you mean the resolution, itself, was referred
to the Committee on Rules and Administration ?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Watkins. And the chairman evidently referred that to this
Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Now, when the chairman questioned you last Friday, in one of his
questions he pointed out to you that, in September 1952, Senators
Welker and Gillette resigned from this committee and, in November
1952, Senator Monroney resigned; and, thereafter. Senator Hayden
appointed himself as a member of the subcommittee.
Now, one of the questions that was asked of you, Mr. Watkins, was
whether or not that committee which had originally started as a com-
mittee of 5, could operate as a committee of 3; is that right? Do you
remember being asked that ?
540a
540b HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Watkins. Yes ; that is right.
Mr. Williams. And, as I read your testimony, it is your opinion
that the committee could function and could operate as a committee
of 3, with 3 members participating.
Mr. Watkins. That is my judgment about it.
Mr. Williams. And in your testimony, as I read it, you cited para-
graph 2 of rule III of the Standing Rules of the Senate, which
provides :
a quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators (hily chosen and sworn.
Mr. Watkins. That is right.
Mr. Williams. And you then said, as I read your testimony :
Unless the committee has rules in violation or in contravention of the Senate
rule, the Senate rules wherever applicable would govern the proceedings.
Mr. Watkins. That is the general rule.
Mr. Williams. Now, I gathered, then, that your opinion is that this
general Senate rule, which provides that a quorum is present when
a majority of the Senators are present, is applicable to the Subcom-
mittee on Privileges and Elections because they have no rules contrary
to that?
Mr. Watkins. Well, I think it is just the general power of a com-
mittee or of a subcommittee to operate with a majority.
Mr, Williams. Yes.
Mr. Watkins. I do not know that. I am not saying now that the
Senate rule would govern that proceeding.
Mr. Williams. But generally the Senate rule, as I read your testi-
mony, and as I understand your testimony now, the Senate rule
applies, in the absence of any committee rule to the contrary.
Mr. Watkins. I would think it would as a general proposition. I
think the House of Representatives has a rule that makes a procedure
of the House applicable to its standing committees when they have
no rule that would be in contravention of the House.
Mr. Williams. Yes; and, as Parliamentarian of the Senate, it is
your opinion that that same principle applies to the Senate com-
mittees ?
Mr. Watkins. I would think so ; yes.
Mr. Williams. Now, you know, do you not, Mr. Watkins, that the
Committee on Rules and Administration has no rules of its own?
Mr. Watkins. I do not know that to be a fact.
Mr. Williams. Well, I would ask the Chair to take judicial notice
of that fact, and I know that an inquiry would have to be made, but
I have made such an inquiry, and I have learned that there are no
rules of procedure in effect, either for the Committee on Rules and
Administration or the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections,
which is a subcommittee of the Committee on Rules and Adminis-
tration.
The Chairman. I do not know anything about that, whether there
is or not.
Mr. Williams. I think the committee can judicially notice the
rules of the Senate and the rules of the committees of the Senate.
The Chairman. Yes, we can; but I say we have not — I have not
talked with
Mr. Williams. I am going to ask the committee to judicially notice
this, after it has checked it by asking the clerk of that committee.
(There was further discussion oif the record.)
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 540c
Mr. Williams. I simply want the record to show that I have for-
mally requested the committee to notice judicially that the Committee
on Rules and Administration, and its Subcommittee on Privileges and
Elections, have no rules of their own governing their procedures.
Now, Mr. Watkins, I call your attention to rule XXIV of the Stand-
ing Rules of the Senate
Mr. Watkins. On the appointment of committees.
Mr. Williams. And I direct your attention to the last sentence of
the first paragraph of that rule, which provides that
All other committees slial Ibe appointed by ballot, unless otherwise ordered,
and a plurality of votes shall appoint.
Now, would not that rule, Mr. Watkins, apply to the committees in
the absence of a committee rule to the contrary ?
Mr. Watkins. It would apply to the standing committees, to the
full committees. That is all that rule deals with — just the standing
committees of the Senate.
Mr. Williams. Now, on the principle that you have just told us
about, namely, that where the standing committees have no rules of
procedure of their own, opposed to the regular rules of the Senate,
would not this rule of the Senate apply to the standing committee ?
Mr. Watkins. Not necessarily.
Mr. Williams. Well, now, did you not say, sir, that in your
opinion
Mr. Watkins. I said
Mr. Williams. Excuse me, Mr. Watkins, if I may just state the
question for the record.
Mr. Watkins. Yes.
Mr. Williams. Did you not say that, in your opinion, where there
were no rules of the committee, itself, the rules of the Senate would
apply to the procedures and actions of the committee? Did you not
say that, in relation to the quorum question ?
Mr. Watkins. Yes. If a matter came up, and my opinion were
asked about it, I would say, generally speaking, that would be the
truth ; that would be true.
Mr. Williams. Now, would it not likewise be true in relation to
rule XXIV, just as it was true in relation to rule III ?
Mr. Watkins. Rule No.
Mr. Williams. Rule No. Ill deals with a quorum. .
Mr. Watkins. Yes.
Mr. Williams. And rule No. XXIV deals with the appointment of
committees ?
Mr. Watkins. Standing committees.
Mr. Williams. Now, would not rule XXIV be just as applicable
to the activities and operations of a committee of the Senate, as rule
No. Ill, in the absence of some individual committee rule to the
contrary ?
Mr. Watkins. I do not know just exactly what you mean by that.
Mr. Williams. Well, I will see if I can make it clear, sir.
I understood your testimony to be, on last Friday — and I understood
it to be the same, here, today — and I will read to you from it :
Unless the committee has rules in violation or in contravention of the Senate
rule, the Senate rules wherever applicable would govern the proceedings.
I understood that to be your testimony, both last Friday, and again,
here, today.
540d HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301
Mr. Watkins. Yes; that is wliat I stated.
Mr. Williams. Now, my question is, Would not rule XXIV be
just as applicable to a committee as rule No. Ill in the absence of any
committee rule to the contrary ?
Mr. Watkins. Kule No. Ill, I think deals with
Mr. Williams. This rule, right here [indicating].
Mr, Watkins. "Commencement day of the session."
Mr. Williams. The quorum.
Mr. Watkins. Oh, paragraph 2. Well, the Constitution provides
that there must be a quorum in the Senate to transact business — not
only the rule, but tlie Constitution, itself, as I recall.
Mr. Williams. Now, my question is this, though, Mr. Watkins :
Would not rule XXIV be just as applicable to the procedures of a
committee as rule III, in the absence of a committee rule to the con-
trary, in accordance with the opinion which you expressed?
Mr. Watkins. Well, with reference to the standing committees of
the Senate, I think it probable that very few of them have rules.
They have customs. Now, the customs are not all uniform as to com-
mittee procedure. I think that is an established fact, by reason of
what has occurred within the past year or two, though a committee
may select its own procedure. Quite often the committees have a
procedure of their own. It may not have been adopted by formal
action of the committees; it is just a practice or a custom that has
grown up.
The Chairman. Could I ask a question, there ? And has it not been
accepted by almost the unanimous consent of the committees and
universal observance by the committees ?
Mr. Watkins. It has. Probably very few of the committees have
uniform rules — some of them do not have any at all. Some of them
do, I think, have written rules, adopted by the committee.
Mr. Williams. Now, if they do not have any rules, your testimony
is that the rules of the Senate apply ; is not that correct ?
Mr. Watkins. Yes, I would say that, if anybody made a point of
it in a committee; but, as long as nobody raises any question about
the procedure, I do not think it would make much difference whether
the rules applied or not. I think there would probably have to be
some point made on that.
In other words, the procedure of the committee, or the custom of
the committee, would have to be attacked, I think, in a meeting of the
committee, itself. Then, if that point is raised, and the committee
had no rules, I think the application of the Senate rules, if they
were applicable, would be proper.
Mr. Williams. Now, the Senate rules provide that committees
shall be appointed by ballot, do they not ?
Mr. Watkins. Unless otherwise ordered.
Mr. Williams, Yes. Now, if a committee has no rules on the
ai^pointment of subcommittees, would not the Senate rule apply,
and would not the subcommittee be appointed by ballot ?
Mr. Watkins. No, because the Senate has no rule on subcommittees
at all. It only deals with the standing committees. About the only
reference in the rules of the Senate is that any duly authorized sub-
committee thereof may transact business.
Mr. Williams. It has no rules on the quorum of the committee,
either, does it?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 540e
Mr. Watkins. It does. Yes, they have a rule on that. I think,
under the Legislative Reorganization Act, and in certain cases, it
■could authorize the transaction of business by less than a majority,
but more than one. That is part of the Senate rules ; but, in reporting
a bill to the Senate, there must be a majority of the actual number
on the committee present; and in certain cases, the committee, or a
subcommittee, may authorize the taking of sworn testimony by less
than one-third of its membership.
Mr. Williams. So that you, as I understand your testimony now,
do not feel that the principle which you held for last Friday, that
unless the committee has rules in violation or contravention of the
Senate rule, the Senate rules would govern the procedure? You do
not feel that that procedure is applicable to the selection of sub-
committees by a Senate committee?
Mr. Watkins. I do not think it would be, for the reason that the
Senate has no rule whatever governing subcommittees, as far as I
know.
Mr. Williams. But it does have rules governing the selection of
committees, does it not?
Mr. Watkins. Standing committees are selected by the Senate
itself.
The Chairman. The committees to which you refer are those set
up in the Legislative Reorganization Act, are they not?
Mr. WATiaNS, Yes. They are standing connnittees. I believe
there are 15 of them, now ; I would not be certain. But there is noth-
ing that I observe in it that hits at any rule of the subcommittee, be-
cause I think the Senate leaves that to the committees, themselves, to
fix the rules of their own procedure, when they want to do that.
Mr. Williams. Now, Mr. Watkins, as Parliamentarian of the Sen-
«,te, do you agree that a proceeding looking toward the expulsion of a
Senator is a quasi- judicial proceeding, and that the Senate is sitting
in that quasi- judicial capacity ?
Mr. Watkins. I do not know that they would sit in any different
capacity than they would on anything else — than they would in pass-
ing on the credentials of a Senator-elect who might be subject to
challenge.
Mr, Williams. Do you disagree with the precedence that Hines and
Cannon cite, and that Willoughby cites, saying that expulsion pro-
ceedings have been regarded as proceedings wherein the Senate is
-exercising its quasi-judicial function?
Mr. Watkins. I am not familiar with those precedents.
Mr. Williams. I notice that, near the end of your testimony, here,
last Friday, you said that, notwithstanding that, when the committee
report was filed on January 2, 1953, by Senators Hayden, Hendrick-
son, and Hennings — notwithstanding the fact that only 2 of the origi-
nal 5 Senators who began hearing the evidence in the case were still
on the committee, that that report was a valid report.
Mr. Watkins. Yes, in my judgment.
Mr. Williams. Now, would that still be true, if only two of the
Senators had heard the evidence in the case ?
Mr. Watkins. I think so, because they were a duly constituted com-
mittee of three members when that report was made.
Mr. AVilliams. In other words, is it your opinion that the Senate
can start the proceeding looking toward the expulsion of a United
States Senator, with 5 Members, it may then cut the number to 3, and
liiilliiilllilii
3 9999 05445 4739
SENATE RESOLUTION 301
it may then replace 1 ot the 3 with a new man, so that only 2 of the
original 5 were present, and only 2 have heard the evidence, and
that they can report as a full committee?
Mr. Watkins. I think o men, certainly, in my judgment, could
make a report ; and that report, as I understand it, was signed by all
3 of the members at the time it was filed.
Mr. Williams. Would it affect your judgment on this matter if
one of the members had not heard or read the evidence?
Mr. Watkins. I do not think it would affect the right of the com-
mittee to make a report.
Mr. Williams. In other words, it is your opinion that 2 out of 5
members of a subcommittee can report ?
Mr. Watkins. Now, we only have 3 acting members on that sub-
committee, with 2 vacancies.
JMr. Williams. There were five to start with ?
INIr. Watkins. With two vacancies there.
Mr, Williams. It started with five, did it not ?
Mr. Watkins. They started with 5 ; 2 resigned ; that left 3 — a ma-
jority of the committee.
Mr. Williams. And then 1 of the 3 resigned, did he not ?
Mr, Watkins. Yes; and then, until that third member was ap-
pointed, that committee was powerless to act with only two members.
They could not act until that vacancy was filled — until one of the
vacancies was filled.
The Chairman. You mean by that, Avhen the vacancy was filled,
they then would have three ?
Mr. Watkins, Yes,
The Chairman. And that restored the power of the committee?
Mr, Watkins. That restored the actual number of members serv-
ing on that committee to 3; which is a majority of the 5 originally
authorized.
Now, I miglit say it is common knowledge tliat these committees,
in passing on legislative matters and everything, frequently do it by
much less than the full membership.
Mr. Williams. I know they do it, in passing on legislative matters.
Do you think they can do it in passing on matters wherein they are
exercising their quasi-judicial function?
Mr. Watkins, Well, I will not give an answer on that, because I
am not familiar with tliat. Of my own knowledge, I do not know
whether that would be an ordinary proceeding, or a quasi- judicial
proceeding; but this committee has no power of its own to pass judg-
ment on anybody; that is to say, this committee could not. They
could recommend that a Senator be expelled, but they have no power
to expel him. They just simply make a report to the Senate of their
findings, and then the Senate itself is the only body that passes on
the question of the expulsion of a Senator.
Mr, Williams, How can they make a report of their findings if
they have not heard it?
Mr, Watkins. Well, an opportunity would be given to that man
who has not heard the testimony, to read tlie printed testimony previ-
ously ; or if that was not available in printed form, he certainly would
have an opportunity to read the transcript and familiarize himself
with the situation.
Mr. Williams. Would you think that would be necessary for him
to do, before he could become legally qualified to affix his name to
the report ?
HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 540g
Mr. Watkins. I do not think it ayouM be ; because he is a member
of the committee, and, if he had not heard the evidence, I do not think
that would affect his right to sign the report.
Mr. Williams. In other words, following your opinion to its logical
conclusion, Mr. Watkins, if none of the members of tlio so-called Gil-
lette committee, at the end of 1952, had heard any of the evidence
on their Senate Resolution 187, they still would have been legally
empowered to make a report to the Senate ?
Mr. Watkins. Not a subcommittee. A subcommittee must report
to the full committee.
Mr. Williams. They would have been legally empowered to make
a report to the full committee ?
Mr. Watkins. I think so — legally. I am speaking, now, from a legal
standpoint.
Mr. Williams. Notwithstanding the fact that none of them had
heard the evidence ?
Mr. Watkins. That is right.
Mr. Williams. That is all.
The Chairman. Mr. Watkins, would there not be an assumption,
ordinarily, that no committee, and no man, on a matter of that sort,
would sign his name, unless he had either heard or read the testimony
in the record ?
Mr. Watkins. Well, they sign their names, now, to certain facts
that are set out in that report ; and evidently they would know some-
thing about those facts.
The Chairman. This is material. I do not know whether this
would come within your province or not, but, as a matter of law, if
they sign a report and make it their official action, the assumption
would be that they had heard or read it.
Mr. Watkins. I think the presumption is that they are familiar
with whatever they sign their names to, in the way of a report.
Mr. Williams. Do you know whether Senator Hay den read the
evidence on Senate Resolution 187 ?
Mr. Watkins. No ; I do not ; I do not.
Mr. Williams. So that your testimony on Friday was based on the
gratuitous assumption that he had ?
Mr. Watkins. No ; he did not say that he had, at all. He did not
say that.
Mr. Williams. But, for the purposes of your answers, you assumed
that he had ; did you not ?
Mr. Watkins. No, no. Can you find that in the record ?
The Chairman. I think I called it to your attention in something
I asked you just a few moments ago; that is, whether you would
assume there was a possibility that they would read it, even if they
had not sat and listened to it. They could read it ?
Mr. Watkins. There was a question of Senator Hennings' being
addressed as "chairman" or "Mr. Chairman" ; and I think he asked me,
now, if I knew whether he had been appointed as chairman.
The Chairman. Well, I do not remember that.
Mr. Williams. I have no further questions on this, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Watkins, for coming before the
committee.
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05445 4838
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11